Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the faster GPU in raw compute, scoring 4979 in the Geekbench OpenCL test against 4549 for the Intel HD Graphics P530, a 9.5% advantage. For any workload that leans on GPU compute, the Quadro 4000 is the pick. The Intel HD Graphics P530, however, is not without merit: it is an integrated part of a Skylake processor with a 15 W TDP, making it the obvious choice for a low-power, compact system where a discrete card is not feasible. If you need maximum compute performance and have the slot and power budget, choose the Quadro 4000. If you are building a small, efficient machine and only need basic display output, the P530 is sufficient. The Quadro 4000 lands at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the P530 sits at the 26th, so both are firmly in the lower half of the performance spectrum, but the Quadro 4000 is clearly ahead of the integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex die: 529 mm² with 3,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses the Skylake GT2 chip, based on Generation 9.0 architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm+ process. Its die size is much smaller at 123 mm². While the P530's transistor count is not recorded, the architectural focus is clearly on efficiency and integration rather than raw throughput.

Memory handling is a major differentiator. The Quadro 4000 has dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The P530 uses system shared memory, with a bus width and type listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth that is "System Dependent." This means the P530's performance is tied to the speed of the host system's RAM, a significant disadvantage in memory-intensive tasks.

Compute resources differ as well. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The P530 has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. The Quadro 4000's pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s for the P530, a 2.5x advantage. The texture rate is closer: 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 16.00 GTexel/s for the P530, meaning the Intel part actually has a slight edge in texture fill. FP32 compute is 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the P530. The P530 does support FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Quadro 4000 does not list.

API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL: both support DirectX 12 (the Quadro at 11_0 feature level, the P530 at 12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The P530 adds Vulkan 1.3 support, while the Quadro 4000 lists no Vulkan support at all. The Quadro 4000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the P530 connects via a Ring Bus. Display outputs are also notably different: the Quadro 4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the P530's outputs are motherboard dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is faster, scoring 4979 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4549 for the Intel HD Graphics P530, a 9.5% lead.

Q: Can the Intel HD Graphics P530 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the P530 lists Vulkan 1.3 support. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 does not list Vulkan support at all.

Q: What kind of memory does each GPU use?

A: The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The P530 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth that is system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, which is more than double the P530's 3.000 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a slightly higher texture rate of 16.00 GTexel/s compared to the Quadro 4000's 15.20 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Architecture: NVIDIA Fermi (GF100) versus Intel Generation 9.0 (Skylake GT2)
• Process Node: 40 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm+ (Intel)
• Die Size: 529 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Transistors: 3,100 million versus not recorded
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base Clock: not recorded versus 350 MHz
• Boost Clock: not recorded versus 1000 MHz
• Memory Clock: 702 MHz, 2.8 Gbps effective versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 2 GB GDDR5 versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.86 GB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 256 versus 192
• TMUs: 32 versus 16
• ROPs: 32 versus 3
• Pixel Rate: 7.600 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 15.20 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 486.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: not recorded versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 142 W versus 15 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin versus not applicable
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus not recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort versus Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: not recorded versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 241 mm length, 111 mm height, 20 mm width versus not recorded
• Release Date: 2010-11-01 versus 2015-08-31
• Launch MSRP: 1,199 USD versus not recorded

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one head-to-head benchmark between these two parts: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins this test with a score of 4979, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549. The delta is 9.5% in favor of the Quadro 4000.

This is the only direct comparison available, and it is decisive. The Quadro 4000's lead is modest but consistent with its dedicated memory and higher compute resource counts. The 9.5% gap means the Quadro 4000 is not dramatically faster, but it is clearly ahead in compute workloads. The P530's higher texture rate of 16.00 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s does not translate into a win in the recorded benchmark, suggesting that OpenCL compute favors the Quadro 4000's architecture.

Context from the nearest rivals confirms the positioning. The Quadro 4000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, which scores 4998, just 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB scores 4970, within 0.2% of the Quadro 4000. On the Intel side, the P530's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621, 1.3% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569, 0.2% higher. Both parts sit in a crowded performance band where small changes in driver or workload can shift rankings.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 9.5% OpenCL advantage, combined with dedicated GDDR5 memory and 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, makes it the better choice for GPU-accelerated tasks like rendering, simulation, or any workload that uses OpenCL. It also has a strong lead in pixel fill rate, 7.600 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s, which matters for traditional 2D and 3D rasterization at high resolutions. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card with a 142 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, so it fits into workstations that can accommodate a discrete card. Its display outputs, 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, give it flexible connectivity for multi-monitor setups.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro 4000's 142 W, and it requires no power connectors, no extra slot, and no suggested PSU. It is an IGP, so it adds zero cost and zero space to a build. For systems where the CPU is a Skylake part and the workload is light, such as office productivity, media playback, or basic desktop use, the P530 is entirely adequate. Its texture rate is actually higher than the Quadro 4000's, 16.00 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s, which can help in games or applications that are texture-bound rather than compute-bound. The P530 also supports Vulkan 1.3, which the Quadro 4000 lacks, making it a better match for modern APIs if the software uses them. Its DirectX 12 feature level of 12_1 is also higher than the Quadro 4000's 11_0.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision is about system philosophy. If you want a dedicated GPU with predictable performance and are willing to supply a 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU, the Quadro 4000 delivers a clear compute win. If you want a minimal, low-power system and can live with system shared memory, the P530 is the more practical choice. The data does not support the P530 as a compute alternative, but it does support it as an efficient, integrated display solution.