Or do you think it matters to Google?

::insert boilerplate about which is better for humans ::

Paradoxically, some sites might prefer the format that is less appealing to search engines. If the data is in a form that is easily displayed in the SERP Knowledge Thingy--whatever they’re calling it this week--then some people will simply scoop up the data and never go to your site at all.

Both.
These are not mutually exclusive. Simply from a user perspective, graphs a great, they get the message across quickly (picture 1000 words yada yada), but there are time when readers of your graph may want to see the numbers. I have websites that features graphs prominently, and are the focal point of the content, in all cases graphs are shown with tables. For presentation I use either a tabbed approach or a carousel for easy swiping on mobile.

Pro tip! Static graphs are boring, adding interactive features is a big winner.

I would decide that on the data and the context. What matters to Google is how well your page answers the user's query. The key question is what will make the information most accessible for the user who wants it?

When it comes to delivery, tables are problematic for responsive design, but are still the best way to present some types of data, and desktop users - the majority of mine still are - probably significantly outnumber mobile and tablet users for the type of search that is best answered by detailed data. On the other hand, graphics use more bytes and more trips to the server. It all comes down to the overall context.

I like both but for "unbreakable" Joe Public display purposes I go for graphics simply because one never knows how anyone is viewing it and with what.

Keep it as simple as possible.