Quadro P3200 vs HD Graphics P530
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics P530 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms HD Graphics P530 by a whopping 720% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 801 | 250 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 12.79 | 20.98 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT2 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.40 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4416 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 112 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
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 type | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1740 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 168.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.97 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 HD | 10−12
−750%
| 85
+750%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−833%
| 28
+833%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−557%
|
45−50
+557%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−957%
|
70−75
+957%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−914%
|
70−75
+914%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−557%
|
45−50
+557%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−607%
|
95−100
+607%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−410%
|
50−55
+410%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−914%
|
70−75
+914%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−557%
|
45−50
+557%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40
+471%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
−957%
|
70−75
+957%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−356%
|
73
+356%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−680%
|
110−120
+680%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−607%
|
95−100
+607%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−1029%
|
75−80
+1029%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−469%
|
140−150
+469%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−410%
|
50−55
+410%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−564%
|
70−75
+564%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
−396%
|
240−250
+396%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−914%
|
70−75
+914%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−413%
|
40−45
+413%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−557%
|
45−50
+557%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1500%
|
112
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−356%
|
70−75
+356%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−607%
|
95−100
+607%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−469%
|
140−150
+469%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−3700%
|
35−40
+3700%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−3700%
|
35−40
+3700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−770%
|
170−180
+770%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−705%
|
150−160
+705%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−829%
|
65−70
+829%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−5900%
|
60−65
+5900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−578%
|
60−65
+578%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−160%
|
35−40
+160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−763%
|
65−70
+763%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−160%
|
35−40
+160%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−144%
|
35−40
+144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Valorant | 3−4
−867%
|
27−30
+867%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics P530 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 750% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 833% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 5900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is ahead in 57 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.79 | 22.89 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1740 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
HD Graphics P530 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 720.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 253.1% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics P530 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics P530 is a desktop card while Quadro P3200 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
