HD Graphics 630 vs Quadro 6000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 6000 with HD Graphics 630, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 6000
2010
6 GB GDDR5, 204 Watt
7.00
+125%

6000 outperforms HD Graphics 630 by a whopping 125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking555762
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.17no data
Power efficiency2.3614.27
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGF100Kaby Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date10 December 2010 (14 years ago)1 January 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,399 no data

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 cores448192
Core clock speed574 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)204 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate32.1424.00
Floating-point processing power1.028 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs483
TMUs5624

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount6 GB64 GB
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed747 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth143.4 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A+
CUDA2.0-

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.

Quadro 6000 7.00
+125%
HD Graphics 630 3.11

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.

Quadro 6000 2690
+125%
HD Graphics 630 1197

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 HD30−35
+114%
14
−114%
1440p140−150
+119%
64
−119%
4K27−30
+108%
13
−108%

Cost per frame, $

1080p146.63no data
1440p31.42no data
4K162.93no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 7
+0%
7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 5
+0%
5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
+0%
4
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 28
+0%
28
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6
+0%
6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 3
+0%
3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro 6000 and HD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 6000 is 114% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro 6000 is 119% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro 6000 is 108% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.00 3.11
Recency 10 December 2010 1 January 2017
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 64 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 204 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro 6000 has a 125.1% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 630, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 966.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1260% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 630 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 6000 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 630 is a notebook 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 6000
Quadro 6000
Intel HD Graphics 630
HD Graphics 630

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 40 votes

Rate Quadro 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 1258 votes

Rate HD Graphics 630 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.