Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A400 and Intel UHD Graphics P630 occupy very different corners of the graphics hardware landscape. The RTX A400 is a discrete workstation card built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, while the P630 is an integrated GPU embedded in Intel’s Comet Lake processors. The recorded data shows a wide performance gap between them, but their roles, feature sets, and target environments are distinct enough that the comparison is not purely about speed.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A400 than the Intel UHD Graphics P630 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the P630 scores 5,111. That is a 347% difference in favor of the RTX A400.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 5,628 for the P630. This represents a 295.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6,078, while the P630 has an average of 5,370. The RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, and the P630 sits at the 31st percentile.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P630 have dedicated memory?

A: No. The P630 uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 is listed as Active, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is End-of-life. The RTX A400 was released in April 2024, and the P630 was released in May 2020.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX A400. It includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The P630 has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A400 is built on the GA107 chip using NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The P630 uses the Comet Lake GT2 chip with Intel’s Generation 9.5 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel. The process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the Ampere chip packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The P630 has no listed transistor count, die size, or density, which makes a direct comparison difficult, but the architectural generation gap is clear: Ampere is a modern discrete GPU design, while Generation 9.5 is an older integrated graphics architecture.

The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. The shading unit count is four times higher on the NVIDIA card, which directly impacts compute throughput. The RTX A400 also features 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the P630. This means the RTX A400 can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, while the P630 is limited to traditional rasterization and compute.

Memory architecture differs completely. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. The P630 relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to the host system’s RAM and memory controller. The RTX A400 also has dedicated pixel and texture rates: 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s, respectively. The P630 manages only 3.600 GPixel/s and 28.80 GTexel/s. The pixel rate difference is particularly stark, at nearly eight times lower for the Intel part.

API support also differs. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 12_2 feature level on the RTX A400 enables modern rendering features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the P630 is limited to the older 12_1 feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs were compared in two benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RTX A400 won both, with a 2-0 record in wins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 against the P630’s 5,111. This is a 347% difference, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers more than four times the raw compute performance in this test. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute benchmark, so this result reflects the RTX A400’s advantage in shading units, memory bandwidth, and architectural efficiency. The P630’s 192 shading units and shared memory simply cannot compete with 768 shading units and dedicated GDDR6.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A400 scores 22,237 against 5,628 for the P630, a 295.1% difference. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the gap here is slightly smaller than in OpenCL but still overwhelming. The RTX A400’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the P630’s Vulkan 1.3 may contribute to the difference, but the hardware disparity is the dominant factor.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RTX A400 averages 6,078 across all recorded tests, while the P630 averages 5,370. The RTX A400’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (-0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% delta). This places the RTX A400 in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs, where it is essentially performance-neutral with the MX230 and Quadro P2000.

The P630’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M445 at 5,358 (0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5,416 (-0.8% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M at 5,322 (0.9% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5,317 (1% delta). The P630 sits slightly below the R7 M365X and slightly above the GeForce 840M, indicating it performs around the level of older entry-level discrete GPUs.

Specification Differences

The core specification differences between the two GPUs are substantial. The RTX A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz, while the P630 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The RTX A400’s base clock is higher than the P630’s boost clock, which is a clear indicator of the performance gap.

The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. The TMU count is identical, but the ROP count is more than five times higher on the NVIDIA card. The RTX A400 also has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, while the P630 has none.

Memory is another major difference. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The P630 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. There is no dedicated VRAM on the Intel part, and its memory performance is entirely dependent on the host system.

The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W and is a single-slot card with no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The P630 has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP, meaning it draws power from the motherboard and has no separate power requirements. The RTX A400 connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the P630 uses a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs differ as well: the RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the P630’s outputs are motherboard dependent.

The RTX A400 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The P630 has no listed dimensions, as it is integrated into the processor. The RTX A400 is an Active product released in April 2024, with a predecessor in Quadro Turing and a successor in Workstation Ada. The P630 is End-of-life, released in May 2020, with no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX A400 outperforms the P630 in every recorded benchmark. The 347% OpenCL advantage and 295.1% Vulkan advantage are decisive, and the architectural differences support this outcome. The RTX A400 has four times the shading units, dedicated GDDR6 memory, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and a modern 8 nm process. The P630 is a 14 nm integrated GPU with shared memory and no dedicated compute features.

For users who need a discrete workstation GPU with modern features, the RTX A400 is the clear choice. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and hardware ray tracing, and it has the compute throughput to handle demanding workloads. Its average benchmark score of 6,078 places it in the same performance class as the GeForce MX230 and Quadro P2000, making it a capable option for its segment.

For users who need a low-power integrated GPU for basic display output and light workloads, the P630 is sufficient. Its 15 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it ideal for compact systems where power efficiency is paramount. However, its average benchmark score of 5,370 and 31st percentile ranking indicate it is not suitable for demanding graphics or compute tasks.

The RTX A400 is the better GPU by every measurable metric. The P630’s only advantages are its lower power draw and integrated form factor, which are not performance advantages but rather system design considerations.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in compute performance, graphics rendering, and modern API support. It dominates in OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks, and its dedicated memory, ray tracing cores, and tensor cores make it suitable for professional workloads like 3D rendering, AI inference, and GPU-accelerated compute. Its 50 W TDP is low for a discrete card, and its single-slot, no-power-connector design allows it to fit into compact workstations.

The P630 wins in power efficiency and system simplicity. Its 15 W TDP is one-third of the RTX A400’s, and because it is an IGP, it requires no additional power connectors, no cooling solution, and no expansion slot. It is best suited for basic desktop tasks, video playback, and light 2D workloads where dedicated GPU performance is unnecessary.

The data shows that the RTX A400 is a genuine workstation GPU with modern features, while the P630 is a legacy integrated solution. Users who prioritize performance should choose the RTX A400. Users who prioritize power efficiency and minimal system footprint may find the P630 adequate, but they should expect a significant performance compromise. The benchmark results are clear: the RTX A400 wins 2-0, and the margins are massive.