Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct comparison between these two processors: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111. That is a 17.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part, and it represents the only head-to-head win in the dataset. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 does not win any of the recorded comparisons.

The magnitude of this difference is meaningful. A 17.1% delta in OpenCL compute places the Quadro K4000M in a clearly higher performance tier. The gap is not marginal; it is substantial enough to shift the practical positioning of the two products. The Intel part does have an additional benchmark result, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 5628, but there is no corresponding Vulkan result for the Quadro K4000M in the database, so no direct comparison can be made on that API.

When placed against the broader field, the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile. The three-point percentile gap confirms that the OpenCL delta is consistent with overall positioning, though neither part is anywhere near the top of the rankings.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro K4000M show how tightly clustered its performance is. The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5987, a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982, a delta of 0.1%. Even the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, at 5996, is only 0.2% ahead in this specific workload. The GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000, again just 0.2% ahead. This tells a clear story: the Quadro K4000M is a mid-pack performer that happens to land in a very dense score neighborhood.

For the Intel part, its nearest rivals are similarly tight. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, a 0.2% delta. The Radeon R7 M365X scores 5416, putting it 0.8% ahead. The GeForce 840M scores 5322, which is 0.9% behind the Intel part. The GeForce 930A scores 5317, 1% behind. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is therefore right at the boundary between entry-level discrete GPUs and integrated graphics, with its average benchmark score of 5370 sitting between these rivals.

The average benchmark score tells the same story as the head-to-head. The Quadro K4000M averages 5986 across its single recorded benchmark, while the Intel part averages 5370 across two benchmarks. That is an 11.5% difference in average score, slightly smaller than the OpenCL delta because the Intel Vulkan result of 5628 pulls its average up. Still, the direction is unambiguous.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses the Comet Lake GT2 chip, built on Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture, on a 14 nm+++ process from Intel's own foundry. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This is a 5x difference in shading units, a 3.3x difference in TMUs, and a 10.7x difference in ROPs. The ROP count for the Intel part is particularly low, which directly limits its pixel throughput.

Clock behavior is also distinct. The Quadro K4000M runs at a fixed 601 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 700 MHz, or 2.8 Gbps effective. The Intel part has a 350 MHz base clock that boosts to 1200 MHz, a 3.4x boost ratio. Memory for the Intel part is system shared, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The Quadro has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

The resulting throughput numbers show the practical impact of these differences. The Quadro K4000M achieves 12.02 GPixel/s pixel rate and 48.08 GTexel/s texture rate. The Intel part achieves 3.600 GPixel/s and 28.80 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is 3.3x, while the texture rate gap is 1.7x. FP32 compute is 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 460.8 GFLOPS for the Intel part, a 2.5x difference. The Intel part does offer FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, but the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power draw is another major differentiator. The Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, connected via Ring Bus. That is a 6.7x difference in power envelope, which explains the thermal and integration constraints of each part.

API support also differs. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, despite its lower raw compute.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins where raw compute throughput and dedicated memory matter. Its 960 shading units and 32 ROPs give it a decisive edge in OpenCL compute, where it leads by 17.1%. The 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus provides 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32 rate means it can sustain heavy shader workloads without bottlenecking.

The Quadro also wins on pixel throughput. At 12.02 GPixel/s, it is 3.3x faster than the Intel part's 3.600 GPixel/s. This matters for any workload that fills the screen with complex effects, such as rendering or compositing. The texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s is 1.7x higher than the Intel part's 28.80 GTexel/s, giving it an edge in texture-heavy scenes.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 100 W, making it suitable for systems where power and cooling are constrained. The 350 MHz base clock that boosts to 1200 MHz gives it adaptive performance that scales with thermal headroom. Its system shared memory model means no dedicated VRAM allocation is needed, which simplifies system design.

The Intel part also wins on API modernity. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, both newer than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. For workloads that leverage these newer API features, the Intel part has a software advantage even where its hardware is slower. Its FP16 capability at 921.6 GFLOPS is also notable, as the Quadro has no recorded FP16 path.

The data does not show any benchmark where the Intel part wins outright. Its Vulkan score of 5628 is higher than its OpenCL score of 5111, suggesting it performs better on Vulkan, but there is no Quadro Vulkan result to compare. The practical conclusion is that the Quadro wins on performance, while the Intel part wins on power, size, and API currency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111. The Quadro is 17.1% faster in this test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K4000M has an average benchmark score of 5986 across one test. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 averages 5370 across two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). The Intel part's Vulkan score of 5628 raises its average, but it still trails the Quadro.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel part uses 6.7x less power.

Q: Does the Intel part have any advantage in API support?

A: Yes. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192. The Quadro has 5x more shading units.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. Its 17.1% OpenCL lead, 2.5x FP32 throughput, and 3.3x pixel rate make it the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. The 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth removes the dependency on system RAM, which is a structural advantage for sustained workloads. The 34th percentile ranking versus the Intel part's 31st confirms its higher standing in the overall database.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the rational pick for constrained environments. Its 15 W TDP allows deployment in systems where the Quadro's 100 W envelope is unacceptable. The IGP form factor with Ring Bus integration eliminates the need for a discrete slot. Its newer DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 support mean it can run software that requires these API versions, something the older Quadro cannot claim. The FP16 capability at 921.6 GFLOPS adds a compute path the Quadro lacks.

For a mobile workstation requiring maximum OpenCL compute, the Quadro K4000M is the data-backed choice. For an embedded or low-power system prioritizing API currency and minimal power draw, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the appropriate selection. The two parts do not compete for the same socket, and the data shows they should not be forced into the same role.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |

|---|---|---|

| Manufacturer | NVIDIA | Intel |

| Chip | GK104 | Comet Lake GT2 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 9.5 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) | HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 601 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 601 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 960 | 192 |

| TMUs | 80 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.02 GPixel/s | 3.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 48.08 GTexel/s | 28.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,153.9 GFLOPS | 460.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2020-05-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | Not recorded |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Not recorded |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 34 | 31 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 5986 | 5370 |