Quadro 400 vs HD Graphics 630

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 630 with Quadro 400, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 630
2017
64 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 15 Watt
3.10
+716%

HD Graphics 630 outperforms 400 by a whopping 716% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7581261
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency14.410.83
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT2GT216
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 January 2017 (7 years ago)5 April 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$169

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 cores19248
Core clock speed350 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate24.007.200
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPS0.108 TFLOPS
ROPs38
TMUs2416

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data163 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 GB512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared770 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.32 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 Dependent1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-1.2

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 630 3.10
+716%
Quadro 400 0.38

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 630 1197
+709%
Quadro 400 148

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 HD14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
4K13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data169.00
4Kno data169.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Metro Exodus 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Metro Exodus 4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 630 and Quadro 400 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 630 is 1300% faster in 1080p
  • HD Graphics 630 is 1200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.10 0.38
Recency 1 January 2017 5 April 2011
Maximum RAM amount 64 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 32 Watt

HD Graphics 630 has a 715.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 113.3% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 400 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 630 is a notebook card while Quadro 400 is a 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 630
HD Graphics 630
NVIDIA Quadro 400
Quadro 400

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.


3.2 1223 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro 400 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.