Intel Arc Pro B60 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two GPUs is limited in scope, but the available measurements paint a stark generational picture. The database contains a single OpenCL benchmark for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 has results across several DirectX and compute tests. Direct head-to-head comparisons across identical tests are not available in the recorded data, so a comprehensive win-loss tally is impossible. However, the existing scores allow for a meaningful performance envelope assessment.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 3898. This places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in this specific test are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 3883, a mere 0.4% behind the Quadro, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919, which is 0.5% ahead. The Quadro 2000D sits 0.8% higher, and the GeForce GT 745M is 1.4% ahead. These deltas are minuscule, indicating that the Quadro 2000, despite its age, is functionally equivalent to these older entry-level parts in a pure compute workload. Its average benchmark score is exactly 3898, reflecting the single test result.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 presents a different profile. Its average benchmark score of 3182 is misleadingly low because it includes a single Passmark DirectX 10 result of 61 and a DirectX 12 result of 76, which heavily skew the average downward. Its flagship result is the Passmark G3D score of 14580, a massive figure that dwarfs the older card's capabilities. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2646 is also a strong modern indicator. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 7029 further underscores its computational lead. In the database's nearest rival list for the Arc Pro B60, the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3163, which is 0.6% behind the Arc's average, while the GeForce GT 640 is 0.9% ahead. The GeForce 920M trails by 3.2%, and the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, which scores 3075, is 3.5% behind the Arc's average, a quirk of the averaging process that includes those low DirectX scores.

The single most important comparison is the OpenCL score of the Quadro 2000 (3898) versus the Passmark G3D score of the Arc Pro B60 (14580). While different benchmark suites, the magnitude of difference, roughly 3.7 times higher for the Intel part, indicates a fundamental generational leap in raw graphics processing power. The Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is dwarfed by the Arc's 12.29 TFLOPS, a difference of over 25 times. Even the Arc's Passmark G2D score of 763, which measures 2D interface performance, suggests a more capable modern display engine.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two products is colossal, spanning three generations of process technology and GPU design philosophy. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, released in December 2010, is built on the Fermi architecture using a 40 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, the GF106, contains 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro B60, released in September 2025, utilizes the Xe2-HPG architecture on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. Its chip, the BMG-G21, packs 19,600 million transistors into a slightly larger 272 mm² die, achieving a dramatically higher density of 72.1 million per square millimeter.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Quadro 2000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro B60 offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, producing 456.0 GB/s. This represents an 11-fold increase in memory capacity and a 10-fold increase in bandwidth. The Quadro's memory clock is 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the Arc's memory runs at 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are similarly disparate. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The Arc also includes 20 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Fermi architecture. The Quadro's pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s. The Arc's pixel rate is 192.0 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 384.0 GTexel/s. The Arc's base clock is 2000 MHz with a boost of 2400 MHz, while the Quadro's clocks are not recorded in the database.

Power and interface specs also reflect their eras. The Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, requires no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Arc Pro B60 has a TDP of 200 W, needs a single 8-pin connector, and uses the modern PCIe 5.0 x8 interface. The Quadro is a single-slot card, while the Arc is dual-slot. Display outputs have evolved from the Quadro's 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort to the Arc's 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support. The Arc supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is defined by the benchmarks and the architectural capabilities. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, despite its age, still performs adequately in a narrow band of legacy compute tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3898 is competitive with its immediate rivals, all within 1.4% of each other. For a user running software that relies on older OpenCL kernels without modern optimizations, the Quadro 2000 might still function, though it lacks the hardware features to accelerate newer workloads. Its low TDP of 62 W and lack of power connectors make it a candidate for legacy systems with minimal power delivery infrastructure. Its 1024 MB memory capacity is a limiting factor for any modern workload, but for basic 2D output or very light compute tasks, it remains functional.

The Intel Arc Pro B60 wins decisively in every modern workload category. Its Passmark G3D score of 14580 is a clear indicator of dominance in DirectX-based graphics applications. The DirectX 9 score of 179 and DirectX 11 score of 122, while lower than the G3D aggregate, still represent functional performance in older APIs. The DirectX 12 result of 76 and DirectX 10 result of 61 are anomalously low, possibly indicating driver optimization issues in those specific legacy test paths, but the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2646 suggests strong native DirectX 12 performance. The GPU Compute score of 7029 shows robust compute capabilities for rendering, simulation, and data processing. The 24 GB memory capacity is crucial for large datasets, AI inference, and high-resolution texture workloads. The presence of 20 ray tracing cores gives it a distinct advantage in any application that uses DirectX Raytracing or Vulkan ray tracing extensions.

The Passmark G2D score of 763 indicates strong 2D acceleration for multi-monitor productivity setups, especially with its 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs supporting high refresh rates and high resolutions. The Arc Pro B60's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) performance makes it suitable for compute-heavy professional tasks, while the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS is insufficient for such workloads.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is an end-of-life product from 2010 with a 23rd percentile ranking, a 40 nm process, and a single benchmark score that ties it to other early-2010s entry-level parts. Its performance envelope is defined by its 480.0 GFLOPS compute and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, figures that are now several orders of magnitude below any modern professional GPU.

The Intel Arc Pro B60, while its average benchmark score is skewed by low DirectX 10 and 12 legacy results, demonstrates through its Passmark G3D score of 14580, its GPU Compute score of 7029, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2646 that it is a vastly superior product. Its 20th percentile ranking is a statistical artifact of averaging across disparate tests, not a reflection of its actual capability. The Arc Pro B60 provides 2560 shading units, 20 ray tracing cores, 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, and a 456.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. It supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.

For any professional workload involving modern 3D rendering, video processing, or compute tasks, the Arc Pro B60 is the only viable choice from this comparison. The Quadro 2000 cannot run modern DirectX 12 Ultimate applications, has no ray tracing support, and its memory capacity is insufficient for current asset sizes. The Quadro 2000's only conceivable use case is as a display adapter for legacy software that requires a Fermi-era GPU with specific driver support, but even then, its 62 W TDP and lack of modern display outputs limit its utility. The Arc Pro B60 is the winner for all practical purposes.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has a FP32 performance of 12.29 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 480.0 GFLOPS. The Arc's score is over 25 times higher.

Q: What is the memory capacity and bandwidth of each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 456.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro 2000 has no ray tracing cores listed. The Intel Arc Pro B60 has 20 dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is manufactured on a 40 nm process, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 uses a 5 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has an average benchmark score of 3898 from its single Geekbench OpenCL result. The Intel Arc Pro B60 has an average score of 3182, which is dragged down by low scores in Passmark DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 tests.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's 5.000 GPixel/s.