Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 530 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 530

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 25.2 GTexel / s vs 23.84 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 3.7x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 55 Watt
• 32x more maximum memory size: 64 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 42% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4384 vs 3086
• 3.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.747 vs 8.142
• Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 330.464 vs 262.321
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.804 vs 0.741
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.781 vs 16.571
• Around 64% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 30.177 vs 18.406
• Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2393 vs 2207
• Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2393 vs 2207

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

• 2.1x more core clock speed: 745 MHz vs 350 MHz
• 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
• Around 42% better floating-point performance: 572.2 gflops vs 403.2 gflops
• Around 2% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1011 vs 996
• Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 256 vs 253
• Around 65% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1726 vs 1045
• Around 65% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1726 vs 1045

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 530
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	996 1011
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	253 256
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4384 3086
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.747 8.142
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	330.464 262.321
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.804 0.741
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	19.781 16.571
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.177 18.406
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1045 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2393 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3346 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1045 1726
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2393 2207
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3346 3351

Compare specifications (specs)