Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 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 6 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• Around 89% higher texture fill rate: 28.8 GTexel / s vs 15.2 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 40 nm
• 9.5x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 142 Watt
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 27.517 vs 13.345
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 354.254 vs 306.122
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.807 vs 1.552

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 4000

• Around 36% higher core clock speed: 475 MHz vs 350 MHz
• 10.7x more pipelines: 256 vs 24
• Around 6% better floating-point performance: 486.4 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1476 vs 1237
• Around 28% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 382 vs 299
• Around 8% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5013 vs 4657
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 20.453 vs 20.323
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 39.651 vs 29.327
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2079 vs 1870
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3472 vs 1596
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 vs 3309
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2079 vs 1870
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3472 vs 1596
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 vs 3309

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 4000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1237 1476
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	299 382
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4657 5013
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.517 13.345
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	354.254 306.122
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.807 1.552
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.323 20.453
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.327 39.651
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 2079
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 3472
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3350
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 2079
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 3472
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 3350

Compare specifications (specs)