Intel Arc Pro B60 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and the Intel Arc Pro B60 reveals a generational chasm, not a competitive matchup. The Intel Arc Pro B60 is the clear choice for any modern professional workload, offering a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2646, while the Quadro 2000D is a legacy Fermi part from a different era. The Quadro 2000D does retain a narrow edge in the aggregate benchmark average, with 3930 versus the Intel part's 3182, but this is a statistical artifact of a single OpenCL test versus a diverse suite of DirectX and compute benchmarks. Professionals requiring modern API support, massive memory capacity, and contemporary rendering features should choose the Intel Arc Pro B60. The Quadro 2000D is only relevant for legacy software validation or as a basic display adapter, given its 2x DVI outputs and 1024 MB memory. The data indicates that the Intel part is the superior investment for current and future workloads, while the NVIDIA card is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent opposite ends of the GPU design spectrum. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is built on the GF106 chip using the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². In contrast, the Intel Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip with the Xe2-HPG architecture, part of the Battlemage (Pro Series) generation, on a 5 nm TSMC process. It integrates 19,600 million transistors into a 272 mm² die, achieving a density of 72.1M per mm². This represents a massive leap in fabrication efficiency.

The shader configurations are equally divergent. The Quadro 2000D features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores. The Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, plus 20 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Intel card's FP32 compute is listed at 12.29 TFLOPS, while the Quadro manages 480.0 GFLOPS. The Arc Pro B60 also supports FP16 at 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent on the Fermi part. The Intel solution further includes support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The memory systems are radically different: the Quadro uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Arc Pro B60 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus delivering 456.0 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparison is complicated by the fact that the two GPUs were tested under different benchmark suites. The Quadro 2000D has only one recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 3930. The Intel Arc Pro B60 has no Geekbench OpenCL result, but instead provides a full Passmark suite and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score. In the aggregate, the Quadro's average benchmark score is 3930, while the Arc Pro B60's average is 3182, a difference of 748 points in favor of the older card. However, the Passmark G3D score for the Intel part is 14580, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 7029, indicating strong performance in those specific tests. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2646 shows modern API capability.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro 2000D, based on average score, are the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, delta 0.3%), the GeForce GT 745M (3953, delta -0.6%), the Radeon R5 M420 (3956, delta -0.7%), and the GeForce 830M (3957, delta -0.7%). This places the Quadro in a cluster of low-power mobile and entry-level desktop parts, with a percentile rank of 23 among all GPUs. The Arc Pro B60's nearest rivals are the Quadro P1000 (3163, delta 0.6%), the GeForce GT 640 (3210, delta -0.9%), the GeForce 920M (3287, delta -3.2%), and the GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER (3075, delta 3.5%), with a percentile rank of 20. The delta percentages show the Arc Pro B60 is within 3.5% of cards that include a high-end RTX series GPU, but it is also comparable to very old low-end parts.

The Passmark sub-scores for the Intel card reveal its strengths: DirectX 9 at 179, DirectX 10 at 61, DirectX 11 at 122, DirectX 12 at 76, and G2D at 763. These numbers are not directly comparable to the Quadro's single OpenCL score, but they indicate a well-rounded performer across legacy and modern APIs. The Quadro's 3930 OpenCL score, while higher than the Intel's average, does not reflect the Intel part's actual compute capability in the 3DMark and Passmark tests. The data shows that the Intel part wins in every category where it has a direct measurement, but the lack of a shared benchmark prevents a simple head-to-head score comparison.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key differences between the two cards, based solely on the recorded data:

• Process Node: 40 nm (Quadro) vs 5 nm (Arc Pro B60)
• Transistors: 1,170 million vs 19,600 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² vs 272 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² vs 72.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 2000 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 2400 MHz
• Memory Clock: 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective vs 2375 MHz, 19 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 1024 MB vs 24 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus: 128 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 41.60 GB/s vs 456.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 192 vs 2560
• TMUs: 32 vs 160
• ROPs: 16 vs 80
• RT Cores: None vs 20
• Pixel Rate: 5.000 GPixel/s vs 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.00 GTexel/s vs 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 480.0 GFLOPS vs 12.29 TFLOPS
• FP16: Not listed vs 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 62 W vs 200 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs 550 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs PCIe 5.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: Not listed vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 178 mm (7 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high vs 167 mm (6.6 inches) long, 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, 40 mm (1.6 inches) wide
• Production Status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release Date: 2011-10-04 vs 2025-09-04
• Launch MSRP: The Quadro 2000D launched at 599 USD, while the Arc Pro B60 launched at 499 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has significantly more memory bandwidth at 456.0 GB/s, compared to the Quadro 2000D's 41.60 GB/s.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D support ray tracing?

A: No, the Quadro 2000D has no ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Pro B60 includes 20 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is marked as end-of-life, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 is listed as active production.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro 2000D provides 480.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s, far exceeding the Quadro 2000D's 5.000 GPixel/s.

Q: What display outputs does each card offer?

A: The Quadro 2000D offers 2x DVI outputs, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B60 wins decisively in every category of modern performance. Its 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 compute, 384.0 GTexel/s texture rate, and 192.0 GPixel/s pixel rate are orders of magnitude ahead of the Quadro's 480.0 GFLOPS, 20.00 GTexel/s, and 5.000 GPixel/s. The Arc Pro B60's 24 GB of GDDR6 memory with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth is essential for large datasets, AI inference, and high-resolution texture workloads. Its 20 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it suitable for next-generation rendering pipelines. The presence of Vulkan 1.4 and PCIe 5.0 x8 interface further future-proofs the card. The Intel card wins on power connectors, requiring a 1x 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU, which is standard for modern workstations.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins only in specific legacy scenarios. Its single-slot design and lack of any power connectors make it easy to install in older systems with a 250 W suggested PSU. Its 2x DVI outputs are compatible with older monitors that lack DisplayPort inputs. The 1024 MB memory and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for basic 2D desktop work or very old OpenGL applications. The Quadro's 3930 Geekbench OpenCL score is higher than the Arc Pro B60's average benchmark score of 3182, but this is due to the different test suites; the Intel card's Passmark G3D score of 14580 is far higher. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the Quadro K2000D and GeForce GT 745M, indicating it sits at the bottom of the performance spectrum. The Arc Pro B60's nearest rivals include the Quadro P1000 and GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER, showing it is compared against both entry-level and high-end parts. For any workflow that requires modern APIs, large memory pools, or ray tracing, the Intel Arc Pro B60 is the only viable choice. The Quadro 2000D remains a museum piece for legacy compatibility, not a competitive product.