Quadro K2000M vs HD Graphics 530

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 530 with Quadro K2000M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 530
2015
64 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 15 Watt
2.60

K2000M outperforms HD Graphics 530 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking820817
Place by popularity88not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.38
Power efficiency11.883.27
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameSkylake GT2GK107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$265.27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores192384
Core clock speed350 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate22.8023.84
Floating-point processing power0.3648 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs316
TMUs2432

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceRing BusMXM-A (3.0)

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4DDR3
Maximum RAM amount64 GB2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo 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.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan++
CUDA-+

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.

HD Graphics 530 2.60
K2000M 2.62
+0.8%

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.

HD Graphics 530 1001
K2000M 1010
+0.9%

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.

HD Graphics 530 1362
K2000M 1798
+32%

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.

HD Graphics 530 6831
K2000M 7947
+16.3%

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.

HD Graphics 530 935
K2000M 1046
+11.9%

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.

HD Graphics 530 7500
K2000M 8766
+16.9%

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 HD13
−76.9%
23
+76.9%
4K7
+0%
7−8
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data11.53
4Kno data37.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 13
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−333%
12−14
+333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 530 and K2000M compete in popular games:

  • K2000M is 77% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 530 is 18% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K2000M is 333% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 530 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • K2000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 55 tests (96%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.60 2.62
Recency 1 September 2015 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 64 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 55 Watt

HD Graphics 530 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

K2000M, on the other hand, has a 0.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 530 and Quadro K2000M.

Be aware that HD Graphics 530 is a notebook graphics 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.

Vote for your favorite

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


Intel HD Graphics 530
HD Graphics 530
NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.1 1520 votes

Rate HD Graphics 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 34 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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