Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 records an average benchmark score of 5370, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 records 4684. The Intel part sits at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 20.3% ahead of the Quadro P400’s 4249. This is the largest performance gap between the two in the recorded data.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5628, beating the Quadro P400’s 5119 by 9.9%. Both scores are higher than their respective OpenCL results, but the Intel part maintains the lead.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, compared to 192 on the Intel UHD Graphics P630. However, the Intel part has 24 texture mapping units versus 16 on the Quadro, and the Intel part has 3 ROPs versus 16 on the Quadro.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth and a system-shared bus width.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W. The Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear winner in raw compute performance: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In OpenCL, it leads by 20.3%, and in Vulkan it leads by 9.9%. This makes the Intel part the better choice for anyone prioritizing compute benchmarks in these specific workloads.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is not without merit from the recorded data. It has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory pool with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, which is a fixed resource rather than system-dependent. This matters for applications that need consistent memory allocation without relying on the host system’s RAM. The Quadro also has more shading units (256 vs 192), more ROPs (16 vs 3), and a higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s vs 3.600 GPixel/s). Those specifications point to strengths in rasterization-heavy tasks, even if the benchmark scores favor the Intel part.

The choice comes down to the use case. If the workload is dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks as measured by Geekbench, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the stronger option. If the workload requires a dedicated memory buffer, higher pixel throughput, or a standalone card with its own VRAM, the Quadro P400 is the more appropriate pick. Neither GPU is current production; both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 against the Quadro P400’s 4249. That is a delta of 20.3%, the largest single-test margin in this comparison. The Intel part’s FP32 throughput of 460.8 GFLOPS is lower than the Quadro’s 641.0 GFLOPS, yet the Intel part still posts a higher OpenCL score. This suggests the benchmark is sensitive to factors beyond raw FP32 peak, such as driver optimization or memory access patterns.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5628, while the Quadro P400 scores 5119. The delta here is 9.9%, a smaller but still decisive margin. Both GPUs support Vulkan 1.3 or newer: the Intel part lists Vulkan 1.3, and the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part’s higher Vulkan score indicates it handles the API’s compute and graphics workloads more effectively in this test.

The Quadro P400’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, both with an average score of 4657 and a delta of 0.6%, as well as the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (-0.9%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (1.2%). The Quadro’s average of 4684 places it slightly above the RX 9060 XT and R5 M320, but below the R8 M445DX.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5358 (0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5416 (-0.8%), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5322 (0.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317 (1.0%). The Intel part’s average of 5370 is within 1% of all four rivals, indicating it sits in a tightly clustered performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ sharply on memory and interface. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate; the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock, relying on the host system.

The bus interface also differs. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus, typical of integrated graphics, while the Quadro P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Intel part is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs. The Quadro is a single-slot card with 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Dimensions diverge as well. The Quadro P400 measures 150 mm in length (5.9 inches) and 69 mm in height (2.7 inches). The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has no recorded dimensions, as it is integrated into the processor package.

Power characteristics are distinct. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Quadro has a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Quadro’s slot width is single-slot, while the Intel part has no slot width because it is not a discrete card.

Release dates differ by over three years. The Quadro P400 launched on 2017-02-06, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 launched on 2020-05-12. Both are end-of-life in production status. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta; the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on Intel’s Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the Comet Lake GT2 chip, using a 14 nm+++ process at Intel’s foundry. It is part of the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The Quadro has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count, die size, or density.

The shading unit counts differ: the Intel part has 192 shading units, while the Quadro has 256. Texture mapping units favor the Intel part at 24 versus 16, but ROPs favor the Quadro at 16 versus 3. The pixel rate reflects this: the Quadro reaches 20.03 GPixel/s, while the Intel part reaches 3.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer: the Intel part posts 28.80 GTexel/s, and the Quadro posts 20.03 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance favors the Quadro at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS on the Intel part. FP16 performance is a different story: the Intel part delivers 921.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro delivers only 10.02 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. This makes the Intel part dramatically stronger in FP16 compute, which could matter for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs slightly: the Intel part lists Vulkan 1.3, and the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Clock speeds also differ. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz. The Quadro has a base of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1252 MHz. The Quadro’s clocks are much higher at base, but the Intel part’s boost is close to the Quadro’s boost.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in compute benchmarks as recorded. It takes the OpenCL test by 20.3% and the Vulkan test by 9.9%. It also wins on FP16 throughput, delivering 921.6 GFLOPS versus 10.02 GFLOPS on the Quadro. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, or half-precision math, the data points squarely at the Intel part.

The Intel part also wins on texture rate, posting 28.80 GTexel/s against the Quadro’s 20.03 GTexel/s. It has more TMUs (24 vs 16), which supports its higher texture throughput. This could benefit workloads that are texture-fetch heavy, though the Quadro’s higher pixel rate tells a different story for rasterization.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins on pixel throughput. Its 20.03 GPixel/s is over five times the Intel part’s 3.600 GPixel/s, and it has 16 ROPs versus 3. This makes the Quadro the better choice for fill-rate-bound rendering, such as high-resolution framebuffer operations or basic 2D/3D raster workloads.

The Quadro also wins on memory architecture. Its 2 GB GDDR5 pool with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth is fixed and isolated from the host system, whereas the Intel part’s system shared memory is system dependent. For applications that require predictable memory allocation or that cannot tolerate sharing bandwidth with the CPU, the Quadro’s dedicated VRAM is the safer pick.

The Quadro wins on raw FP32 peak as well, at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS, and on shading units (256 vs 192). This does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded tests, but it indicates the Quadro has more theoretical compute headroom for certain optimized workloads.

The Intel part wins on power efficiency as measured by TDP: 15 W versus 30 W. It also wins on Vulkan API version support in terms of benchmark score, though the Quadro lists the newer Vulkan 1.4 specification. The Intel part is integrated, requiring no expansion slot or power connectors, while the Quadro needs a single slot and a 200 W PSU suggestion.

In short, pick the Intel UHD Graphics P630 for compute benchmarks, FP16 workloads, and lower power draw. Pick the NVIDIA Quadro P400 for rasterization, dedicated memory needs, and higher pixel fill rates. Both are end-of-life, so availability and driver support are the practical deciding factors beyond the recorded performance data.