Violently and forcibly penetrating someone against their will is a pretty big difference to not using a condom when previously asked to do so. Depending on the country, yes they're both rape by the legal definition, but it's absolutely worth clarifying.

No, it would be a small difference to some people, and it would be a big difference to others.

Just like being choked suddenly without consent would be delightful to some and horrifying to others.

It's not a matter of "which act is more violent". There are a class of acts which rise to the level of rape. This includes condom removal, forcible penetration, unforced penetration following clear withdrawal of consent, etc.

"Is it rape?" is not a matter of which of these different acts is considered most violent. The law doesn't establish a hierarchy. It's a bar. Either the act rises above the bar or not. It's a matter of whether parties explicitly gave consent, whether they explicitly withdrew consent, and which parties committed which acts under those circumstances.

It's important that it is a bar, so that people can know rationally whether they or others have crossed it. A hierarchy with "bad rape", "better rape" and "best rape" would not be a useful social contract.

One of those is recklessly exposing someone to the risk of an incurable disease, the other is doing the same thing with additional immediately visible damage.

I‘m sure he would have had to use violence, if his victim had not been asleep at the time.