Intel UHD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 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) 1 month(s) later
• Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 4.5x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 68 Watt
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1596 vs 1577
• Around 98% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3309 vs 1671
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1596 vs 1577
• Around 98% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3309 vs 1671

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• 3x more core clock speed: 1046 MHz vs 350 MHz
• Around 56% higher texture fill rate: 44.96 GTexel / s vs 28.8 GTexel / s
• 26.7x more pipelines: 640 vs 24
• 3.1x better floating-point performance: 1,439 gflops vs 460.8 gflops
• 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3572 vs 1237
• Around 83% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 548 vs 299
• 2.6x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12020 vs 4657
• Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.695 vs 27.517
• Around 66% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.094 vs 354.254
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.205 vs 1.807
• Around 50% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.455 vs 20.323
• 5.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 166.26 vs 29.327
• 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4921 vs 1870
• 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4921 vs 1870
• 17.5x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1193 vs 68

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 630
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1237 3572
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	299 548
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	4657 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.517 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	354.254 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.807 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	20.323 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	29.327 166.26
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1870 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1596 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3309 1671
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	68 1193

Compare specifications (specs)