Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear performance advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 across the two shared benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 points against the Intel UHD Graphics P630's 5111 points. This represents a 33.4% lead for the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that reflects the fundamental differences in their compute architectures. The Quadro K4000's raw FP32 throughput of 1,244.2 GFLOPS more than doubles the Intel part's 460.8 GFLOPS, which explains the magnitude of this OpenCL gap.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Quadro K4000 posts 6964 points in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 manages 5628 points. The delta here is 23.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. Interestingly, the Quadro K4000's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, whereas the Intel part scores higher in Vulkan as well but by a smaller relative amount. This pattern suggests that the NVIDIA architecture handles the Vulkan API particularly well, likely due to its mature driver stack and dedicated graphics processing resources.

Neither benchmark shows a win for the Intel UHD Graphics P630. The head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for the Quadro K4000 and 0 for the Intel integrated solution. When placed in the broader database context, the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel part lands at the 31st percentile. This three-percentile gap underscores that while both products occupy the lower-midrange of the performance spectrum, the NVIDIA card consistently outperforms its Intel counterpart in every measurable compute workload.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The Quadro K4000 achieves an average score of 5982 across all recorded tests, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5370. That 612-point difference translates to roughly an 11.4% overall advantage for the NVIDIA product. The nearest rivals for the Quadro K4000 include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, essentially identical at -0.1%), the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, -0.1%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, +0.2%). For the Intel part, the competitive set includes the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, +0.2%), AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, -0.8%), and NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, +0.9%). These rival comparisons show that both products are closely matched against their direct competitors, but the Quadro K4000 operates in a higher performance tier altogether.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5982 points across all recorded tests, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5370 points, giving the NVIDIA card an approximately 11.4% higher average score.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 versus 5111 for the Intel UHD Graphics P630, a 33.4% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 2 wins for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and 0 wins for the Intel part across the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K4000's closest rival is the AMD FirePro W4100 with an average score of 5987, just 0.1% higher. The Intel UHD Graphics P630's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5416, which is 0.8% higher than the Intel part.

Q: What percentile rankings do these GPUs hold in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 ranks in the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 ranks in the 31st percentile.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan API version?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, despite the NVIDIA card scoring higher in the Vulkan benchmark.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior performer for any compute-intensive workload. Its 33.4% advantage in OpenCL and 23.7% advantage in Vulkan leave little room for ambiguity. The Quadro K4000's dedicated 3 GB of GDDR5 memory with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Intel part's system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, provides a structural advantage that shows up directly in benchmark scores. The Quadro K4000 also offers a higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s versus 28.80 GTexel/s), which translates to better performance in graphics-heavy tasks.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is not without its merits. It consumes only 15 W of power compared to the Quadro K4000's 80 W, making it dramatically more power-efficient for basic display output and light workloads. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, both newer API versions than the Quadro K4000's DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. For systems where power consumption is critical, such as laptops or compact desktops, the Intel integrated solution may be adequate for everyday tasks. But for any user prioritizing raw graphical compute performance, the data clearly points to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output pipelines, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This represents a 4x advantage in shading units for NVIDIA, a 2.67x advantage in TMUs, and an 8x advantage in ROPs. The memory configurations are fundamentally different: the Quadro K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus achieving 134.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part relies on system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth figure.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the Quadro K4000's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The Quadro K4000's memory clock runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), whereas the Intel part's memory clock is listed as "System Shared". Power requirements show the Quadro K4000 at 80 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU and a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the Intel part operates at 15 W TDP with no power connector needed. The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus Ring Bus for Intel. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro K4000, while the Intel part is motherboard dependent.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is built on the GK106 chip using the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Comet Lake GT2 chip with the Generation 9.5 architecture, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The Quadro K4000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation.

The Quadro K4000 was released on 2013-02-28 and has its predecessor listed as Quadro Fermi and successor as Quadro Maxwell. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 was released on 2020-05-12 with no predecessor or successor recorded. The Quadro K4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, while the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP. In terms of API support, the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part also supports FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro K4000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins in all recorded compute benchmarks, with a 33.4% lead in OpenCL and a 23.7% lead in Vulkan. It also holds advantages in pixel throughput (12.96 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s), texture throughput (51.84 GTexel/s versus 28.80 GTexel/s), and raw FP32 performance (1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS). The Quadro K4000's dedicated 3 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for professional graphics workloads, CAD applications, and any task requiring consistent memory bandwidth. Its 24 ROPs provide strong fill-rate performance for rendering tasks, and its 64 TMUs enable detailed texture filtering.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in power efficiency, consuming only 15 W versus the Quadro K4000's 80 W. This makes it the appropriate choice for systems where thermal and power budgets are constrained, such as thin-and-light laptops or passively cooled desktops. The Intel part also supports newer API versions (DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3), which may matter for compatibility with the latest software titles. Its system-shared memory architecture eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM, reducing system cost and complexity. For basic 2D desktop rendering, video playback, and light productivity tasks, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 provides adequate performance while drawing a fraction of the power of the NVIDIA card.

The data shows that these are products from different eras and different market segments. The Quadro K4000, despite being released seven years earlier, delivers substantially higher compute performance thanks to its dedicated hardware resources. The Intel UHD Graphics P630, released in 2020, focuses on integration and efficiency rather than raw performance. Users requiring professional-grade graphics acceleration should select the Quadro K4000, while those prioritizing power efficiency and system simplicity should consider the Intel solution. The benchmark scores leave no ambiguity about which GPU delivers more computational throughput, but the appropriate choice depends entirely on the specific use case and system constraints.