NVIDIA Quadro K2000M vs Intel HD Graphics 630

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

HD Graphics 630
3.09
+18.4%

HD Graphics 630 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 18% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking715776
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.080.28
ArchitectureGen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameKaby-Lake-H-GT2N14P-Q3
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date1 January 2017 (7 years old)1 June 2012 (11 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$265.27
Current price$370 $92 (0.3x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2000M has 250% better value for money than HD Graphics 630.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores24384
Core clock speed300 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate26.4023.84
Floating-point performance441.6 gflops572.2 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on HD Graphics 630 and Quadro K2000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1MXM-A (3.0)
WidthIGPno data

Memory

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4DDR3
Maximum RAM amount64 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimusno data+
Quick Sync+no data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.11.2
Vulkan++
CUDAno data+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD Graphics 630 3.09
+18.4%
K2000M 2.61

HD Graphics 630 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 18% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD Graphics 630 1197
+18.2%
K2000M 1013

HD Graphics 630 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 18% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

HD Graphics 630 7685
K2000M 7947
+3.4%

Quadro K2000M outperforms HD Graphics 630 by 3% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

HD Graphics 630 1729
K2000M 1798
+4%

Quadro K2000M outperforms HD Graphics 630 by 4% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

HD Graphics 630 1067
+2%
K2000M 1046

HD Graphics 630 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

HD Graphics 630 9715
+10.8%
K2000M 8766

HD Graphics 630 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 11% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

HD Graphics 630 19
+10.6%
K2000M 17

HD Graphics 630 outperforms Quadro K2000M by 11% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD15
−66.7%
25
+66.7%
1440p64
+28%
50−55
−28%
4K13
+30%
10−12
−30%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 5
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5
−80%
9−10
+80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Metro Exodus 2
−100%
4−5
+100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 630 and K2000M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • K2000M is 66.7% faster than HD Graphics 630

1440p resolution:

  • HD Graphics 630 is 28% faster than K2000M

4K resolution:

  • HD Graphics 630 is 30% faster than K2000M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 630 is 100% faster than the K2000M.
  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the K2000M is 100% faster than the HD Graphics 630.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 630 is ahead in 36 tests (68%)
  • K2000M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
  • there's a draw in 15 tests (28%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 3.09 2.61
Recency 1 January 2017 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 64 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 55 Watt

The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 630 is a desktop card while Quadro K2000M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 630
HD Graphics 630
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 1039 votes

Rate Intel HD Graphics 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 30 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.