Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620

Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 530 and NVIDIA Quadro K620 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 1 year(s) 1 month(s) later
• Around 2% higher boost clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• Around 40% higher texture fill rate: 25.2 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.7x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 41 Watt
• 32x more maximum memory size: 64 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 39% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 30.747 vs 22.112
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 330.464 vs 297.631
• Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.804 vs 1.427
• Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.781 vs 15.363
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 3329
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 3329

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K620

• 3x more core clock speed: 1058 MHz vs 350 MHz
• 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
• 2.1x better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 403.2 gflops
• 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2220 vs 995
• Around 89% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 480 vs 254
• Around 56% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6869 vs 4397
• 3.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.125 vs 30.177
• 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 vs 1045
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2490 vs 2393
• 2.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 vs 1045
• Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2490 vs 2393
• Around 83% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 702 vs 384

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 530
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K620

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	995 2220
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	254 480
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4397 6869
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.747 22.112
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	330.464 297.631
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.804 1.427
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	19.781 15.363
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.177 99.125
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1045 2970
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2393 2490
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3346 3329
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1045 2970
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2393 2490
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3346 3329
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	384 702

Compare specifications (specs)