Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M
Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA GeForce 840M 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 UHD Graphics 630
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 1124 MHz
- Around 60% higher texture fill rate: 28.8 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
- 2.2x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 33 Watt
- Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1237 vs 1096
- Around 98% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 299 vs 151
- Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.517 vs 22.848
- 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 354.254 vs 162.594
- Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.807 vs 1.237
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3309 vs 3191
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3309 vs 3191
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2017 vs 12 March 2014 |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz vs 1124 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 28.8 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 33 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1237 vs 1096 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 299 vs 151 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.517 vs 22.848 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.254 vs 162.594 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.807 vs 1.237 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 vs 3191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 vs 3191 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 840M
- 2.9x more core clock speed: 1029 MHz vs 350 MHz
- 16x more pipelines: 384 vs 24
- Around 87% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
- Around 24% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5771 vs 4657
- Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.15 vs 20.323
- 3.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 95.545 vs 29.327
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2085 vs 1870
- Around 71% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2736 vs 1596
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2085 vs 1870
- Around 71% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2736 vs 1596
- 7.4x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 503 vs 68
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz vs 350 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 24 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 460.8 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5771 vs 4657 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.15 vs 20.323 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 95.545 vs 29.327 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2085 vs 1870 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2736 vs 1596 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2085 vs 1870 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2736 vs 1596 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 vs 68 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1237 | 1096 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 299 | 151 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4657 | 5771 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.517 | 22.848 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.254 | 162.594 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.807 | 1.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.323 | 21.15 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 29.327 | 95.545 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1870 | 2085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1596 | 2736 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 | 3191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1870 | 2085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1596 | 2736 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 | 3191 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 68 | 503 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel UHD Graphics 630 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell |
| Code name | Coffee Lake GT2 | GM108 |
| Launch date | 1 September 2017 | 12 March 2014 |
| Place in performance rating | 1234 | 1235 |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 460.8 gflops | 863.2 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 28.8 GTexel / s | 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||

