Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile graphics solutions: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111. This gives the NVIDIA part a 16.6% advantage, a decisive margin in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

The Quadro K620M’s 16.6% lead is not a marginal edge; it represents a substantial performance gap in raw compute throughput. Looking at the broader context, the Quadro’s score of 5957 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, which averages 5955 (a 0% delta), and slightly behind the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970 (a -0.2% delta). The NVIDIA Quadro K4000, a desktop-class part, scores 5982, a -0.4% delta versus the K620M. The Intel UHD Graphics 730, a newer integrated solution, scores 5929, which is 0.5% behind the K620M.

The Intel UHD Graphics P630, with its OpenCL score of 5111, sits in a different performance tier. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M445, averages 5358, meaning the Intel part is 0.2% ahead of that card. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5416, putting it 0.8% ahead of the Intel P630. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M averages 5322, which is 0.9% behind the Intel part, and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317, a 1% delta in favor of the Intel P630. This grouping shows that the Intel P630 is competitive with entry-level discrete mobile GPUs, but it cannot match the Quadro K620M’s performance level.

The benchmark results clearly indicate that the Quadro K620M is the stronger compute performer. The 16.6% delta in OpenCL is the only recorded head-to-head metric, and it is a decisive one. The Intel part does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with a win count of 0 against the Quadro’s 1.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is straightforward for users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M outperforms the Intel UHD Graphics P630 by 16.6% in the sole recorded benchmark. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 34th percentile versus the Intel part’s 31st percentile. This indicates that the Quadro is positioned slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

The Quadro K620M is the clear pick for workloads that depend on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain rendering, simulation, or compute tasks. Its 5957 score is competitive with, or slightly better than, several discrete mobile GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA, as shown by its nearest rival deltas. The Intel UHD Graphics P630, scoring 5111, is closer to entry-level discrete parts like the GeForce 840M and 930A, but it falls behind the Quadro by a significant margin.

However, the Intel part has its own strengths that the data supports. It offers a higher Vulkan API version (1.3 versus 1.4 is not listed; the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4, the Intel lists 1.3, so the Quadro is ahead in that regard) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0). For users running older DirectX 11 titles or applications that specifically leverage the newer DirectX 12 feature level, the Intel part may hold an advantage in API compatibility. The Intel P630 also has a much higher texture rate, 28.80 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 17.98 GTexel/s, which could benefit texture-bound workloads. But in the recorded compute benchmark, the Quadro wins outright.

The verdict: choose the NVIDIA Quadro K620M if OpenCL compute performance is the primary metric. Choose the Intel UHD Graphics P630 if you need a lower-power integrated solution with a more modern DirectX feature set and higher texture throughput, accepting a 16.6% compute deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111, giving the Quadro a 16.6% advantage.

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

A: The Intel P630, with an average score of 5370, is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358), 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416), 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322), and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317).

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), giving the Intel part a higher feature level.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a pixel rate of 3.600 GPixel/s, meaning the Quadro can fill pixels more than twice as fast.

Q: Which GPU has a higher shading unit count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has 384 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 has 192 shading units, a 2:1 ratio in favor of the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specifications. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses a 28 nm process node from TSMC, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses Intel’s 14 nm+++ process, with the chip being the Comet Lake GT2. The Intel part does not list transistor count or die size in the database.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Quadro has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. While the Intel boost clock is higher, the Quadro’s base clock is nearly three times higher, which can matter for sustained workloads.

Memory configurations are also distinct. The Quadro K620M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system shared memory, with the memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. The Quadro’s dedicated memory is a clear advantage for dedicated graphics workloads.

The shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units differ: the Quadro has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. This explains the Quadro’s higher pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s) and the Intel part’s higher texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s). The Quadro’s FP32 compute is 863.2 GFLOPS, while the Intel part is 460.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part also lists FP16 performance at 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro does not list FP16.

Power and form factor differ as well. The Quadro K620M has a TDP of 30 W and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the Intel part’s are motherboard dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is significant. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip. Its generation is listed as Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M), and its predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, with the Quadro Maxwell-M as its successor. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is based on the Generation 9.5 architecture, using the Comet Lake GT2 chip, and its generation is HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake). The Intel part does not list a predecessor or successor.

Manufacturing is another key difference. The Quadro K620M is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is fabricated by Intel on its 14 nm+++ process. The transistor density for the Quadro is 13.2M per mm², while the Intel part does not list this metric.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Quadro uses dedicated DDR3 memory, which is a discrete solution. The Intel P630 uses system shared memory, meaning it relies on the host system’s RAM, with bandwidth dependent on the system configuration. This is a core architectural distinction between a discrete GPU and an integrated GPU.

API support differs in key areas. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The higher DirectX feature level on the Intel part (12_1 versus 11_0) indicates support for more advanced DirectX 12 features. The Quadro has a higher Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3).

The compute capabilities are also shaped by architecture. The Quadro’s 384 shading units deliver 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel part’s 192 shading units deliver 460.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part’s FP16 performance of 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) suggests a 2:1 ratio with FP32, a feature not listed for the Quadro. The texture and pixel rates reflect the different TMU and ROP counts, with the Intel part having more TMUs (24 versus 16) but far fewer ROPs (3 versus 8). The release dates also differ, with the Quadro launching on February 28, 2015, and the Intel part launching on May 12, 2020. Both are listed as end-of-life products.