Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 or the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a higher average benchmark score of 5370 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M's 4621. However, this average is based on only two OpenCL and Vulkan tests for the Intel part, while the Quadro M3000M has a much wider set of benchmark data including DirectX 9 through 12 and compute tests.

Q: How does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits within 1% of its nearest rivals. It is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M445, 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, while trailing the AMD Radeon R7 M365X by 0.8%.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two GPUs in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16646 versus 5111 for the Intel UHD Graphics P630, a delta of 69.3% in favor of NVIDIA. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M3000M scores 16668 versus 5628, a delta of 66.2% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 ranks in the 31st percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M ranks in the 27th percentile. This means the Intel integrated solution places slightly higher overall, despite losing decisively in the head-to-head compute and Vulkan tests.

Q: What are the architectural origins of these two GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is based on Generation 9.5 architecture with a Comet Lake GT2 chip built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a GM204 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing approaches. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is an integrated graphics processor from the Comet Lake generation, built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process node. It uses a Generation 9.5 architecture and connects to the rest of the system via a Ring Bus interface. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, in contrast, is a discrete mobile workstation GPU based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and interfaces through PCIe 3.0 x16.

The transistor budgets tell a stark story. The Quadro M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics P630's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but its integrated nature and 14 nm+++ process suggest a far smaller footprint. The manufacturing process difference is significant: Intel's 14 nm+++ is a mature, optimized version of its 14 nm node, while NVIDIA's 28 nm process is a generation older, yet the discrete GPU still achieves far higher raw throughput.

The execution resources diverge sharply. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. This 5.3x difference in shading units and 10.7x difference in ROPs explains why the discrete GPU dominates in fill-rate and compute workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel part runs at a base clock of 350 MHz with a boost up to 1200 MHz, while the Quadro M3000M operates at a higher base of 823 MHz and boosts to 924 MHz. The Intel GPU's lower base clock but higher boost ceiling reflects its power-conscious integrated design, whereas the Quadro M3000M maintains a more consistent, higher sustained clock.

Memory architecture presents another fundamental divide. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses System Shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM with bandwidth described as System Dependent. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This dedicated high-bandwidth memory is critical for the Quadro's workstation workload capabilities.

The Verdict

The data directs different buyers to different products. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is an integrated solution with a 15 W TDP, designed for systems where power efficiency and simplicity matter more than raw graphics throughput. Its average benchmark score of 5370 places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all low-end discrete or integrated-class parts like the AMD Radeon R7 M445 and NVIDIA GeForce 840M. This GPU suits users whose primary workloads are basic display output, light media, and applications that do not demand dedicated graphics memory.

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, despite its lower average benchmark score of 4621 and 27th percentile ranking, is the clear performance winner in the head-to-head tests. The discrepancy between its average score and its head-to-head dominance stems from the benchmark set: the Quadro M3000M's average includes many DirectX and compute tests, some with very low scores like 23 in Passmark DirectX 12 and 26 in Passmark DirectX 10, which drag down its average. The Intel part only has two benchmarks recorded, both of which are far below the Quadro's scores in the same tests.

Users who need compute performance, dedicated VRAM, and workstation-grade capabilities should choose the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is appropriate for systems where the 75 W TDP of the Quadro M3000M is unacceptable, or where the workload is limited to basic graphics. The Quadro M3000M's predecessor and successor in its product line, Quadro Kepler-M and Quadro Pascal-M, indicate a distinct professional lineage, while the Intel part belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics P630 | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |

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

| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ (Intel) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 823 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 924 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 24 | 64 |

| ROPs | 3 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 3.600 GPixel/s | 29.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 28.80 GTexel/s | 59.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 460.8 GFLOPS | 1.892 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Vulkan API | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2020-05-12 | 2015-08-17 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both decisively. The margin is enormous in each case.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 against the Intel UHD Graphics P630's 5111, a delta of 69.3% in favor of NVIDIA. This test exercises general-purpose compute across the GPU's shading units, and the Quadro M3000M's 1024 shading units versus the Intel part's 192 explains the massive gulf. The FP32 throughput figures corroborate this: the Quadro M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 manages 460.8 GFLOPS, roughly a 4.1x difference.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M3000M scores 16668 against 5628, a delta of 66.2%. The Vulkan results are slightly closer than OpenCL, suggesting the Intel integrated GPU handles the modern graphics API relatively better than it handles raw compute, but the Quadro M3000M still more than triples the Intel part's score.

Beyond these two head-to-head tests, the Quadro M3000M has additional benchmark records that paint a fuller performance picture. Its Passmark G3D score is 5543, its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2139, and its 2D score is 402. The DirectX legacy tests show 98 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 10, and 23 in DirectX 12. These figures reveal that the Quadro M3000M performs best in older DirectX workloads and 3D rendering, with weaker results in modern DirectX 12 and compute tasks relative to its own peak.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has no Passmark records in the database, limiting direct comparisons to the two Geekbench tests. Its average benchmark score of 5370 is higher than the Quadro M3000M's 4621, but this is a statistical artifact of benchmark coverage: the Intel part's two scores are both in the 5000 to 5600 range, while the Quadro M3000M's nine scores include several very low DirectX results that depress its average.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and by substantial margins. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy workloads as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, where it leads by 69.3%. The Vulkan graphics test shows a slightly smaller but still dominant 66.2% advantage. The Quadro M3000M's dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth gives it a decisive edge in any workload that benefits from fast, dedicated VRAM rather than system-shared memory. Its 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 29.57 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for professional 3D rendering, CAD, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in scenarios that the head-to-head benchmarks do not measure. Its 15 W TDP versus the Quadro M3000M's 75 W means it is the only viable choice for ultra-low-power systems, thin-and-light laptops, and designs where the MXM Module form factor of the Quadro M3000M is physically impossible. The Intel part's integrated nature with no power connectors and a Ring Bus interface means it requires no additional cooling or power delivery beyond what the host CPU already provides. Its FP16 performance of 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) indicates some capability in workloads that can exploit half-precision arithmetic, a feature the Quadro M3000M does not record.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 also wins on the basis of its average benchmark score of 5370, which is 16.2% higher than the Quadro M3000M's 4621. In the database's overall ranking, the Intel part sits at the 31st percentile versus the Quadro M3000M's 27th. This means that across all GPUs in the database, the Intel integrated solution is not the weaker part overall, despite losing the direct comparisons. The released 2020-05-12 for the Intel part versus 2015-08-17 for the Quadro M3000M reflects its newer design, and its Vulkan 1.3 support (versus 1.4 for the Quadro) places them in the same modern API generation.

For users who prioritize sustained compute performance, dedicated graphics memory, and professional workstation features, the Quadro M3000M is the clear choice. For users who prioritize power efficiency, system simplicity, and lower thermal footprint, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the appropriate pick.