Intel Arc Pro B60 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and Intel Arc Pro B60 represent two very different eras of GPU design. The Quadro K2000 is a Kepler-generation workstation card from early 2013, built on a 28 nm process, while the Arc Pro B60 is a Battlemage-generation professional GPU from late 2025, fabricated on a 5 nm node. The database contains recorded benchmark results for both, yet the comparison is complicated by the fact that the two cards were tested under completely different benchmark suites. The Quadro K2000 has scores from Geekbench compute tests, while the Arc Pro B60 has results from 3DMark and Passmark tests. There is no direct head-to-head benchmark overlap in the recorded data, so the analysis must rely on the architectural specifications, the individual benchmark scores, and the percentile rankings relative to all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the Intel Arc Pro B60 has an average benchmark score of 3182. The Quadro K2000’s average is higher by 782 points, but this difference is misleading because the two cards were tested with different benchmark lists.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc Pro B60 sits at the 20th percentile. Despite the Quadro’s higher average score, it ranks only 4 percentile points above the Arc Pro B60, which indicates that the Arc Pro B60 competes in a similar performance tier when viewed across the full database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Quadro K2000?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 830M with an average score of 3957, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 with 3956, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M with 3953, and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 with 3977. The Quadro K2000 trails the HD 6850 X2 by 0.3% and leads the other three by 0.2% to 0.3%.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Arc Pro B60?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 with an average score of 3163, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 with 3210, the NVIDIA GeForce 920M with 3287, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER with 3075. The Arc Pro B60 leads the P1000 by 0.6% and the RTX 5080 SUPER by 3.5%, but trails the GT 640 by 0.9% and the 920M by 3.2%.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units. This is a 6.7x difference in raw shader count, which explains the large gap in compute throughput.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the Arc Pro B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The memory bandwidth figures are 64.00 GB/s for the Quadro and 456.0 GB/s for the Arc Pro B60.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by more than a decade of silicon design. The Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip, which is built on Kepler architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Arc Pro B60 uses the BMG-G21 chip, which is built on Xe2-HPG architecture and also manufactured by TSMC, but on a modern 5 nm process. The die contains 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 72.1 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the Arc Pro B60 packs over 15 times more transistors into a die that is only 2.3 times larger.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. It has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Arc Pro B60 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units, plus 20 ray tracing cores. The pixel rate for the Quadro is 7.632 GPixel/s, while the Arc Pro B60 reaches 192.0 GPixel/s, a 25x difference. The texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 384.0 GTexel/s for the Arc Pro B60, a 12.6x difference. FP32 compute is 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 12.29 TFLOPS for the Arc Pro B60, which is a 16.8x difference.

The API support also reflects their eras. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc Pro B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate at the 12_2 feature level, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Arc Pro B60 also has FP16 capability at 24.58 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which is absent from the Quadro K2000’s recorded specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows no direct overlap between the two GPUs, so the wins must be interpreted from the individual test suites. The Quadro K2000 has three Geekbench scores: Metal at 3630, OpenCL at 4071, and Vulkan at 4191. Its highest score is in Vulkan, and its lowest is in Metal. The Arc Pro B60 has eight recorded scores across 3DMark and Passmark tests. Its strongest results are in Passmark G3D at 14580 and Passmark GPU Compute at 7029. Its weakest are in Passmark DirectX 10 at 61 and Passmark DirectX 12 at 76.

The Quadro K2000 wins in the sense that its average score is higher, but this is because Geekbench compute tests tend to produce different scales than Passmark tests. The Arc Pro B60 wins in raw capability: it has a much higher transistor count, more shading units, more memory, wider memory bus, higher bandwidth, and faster pixel and texture rates. The Arc Pro B60 also has ray tracing hardware, which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Quadro K2000 at the 24th percentile and the Arc Pro B60 at the 20th percentile are close, but the Quadro is slightly higher. The nearest rival data confirms that the Quadro K2000 sits in a cluster of mobile and older desktop GPUs with average scores around 3950 to 3980. The Arc Pro B60 sits in a cluster with the Quadro P1000, GT 640, 920M, and RTX 5080 SUPER, with average scores between 3075 and 3287. This suggests that the Arc Pro B60’s Passmark G3D score of 14580 is a strong result for its class, but its average is dragged down by the low DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every measurable specification. The Quadro K2000 has a 28 nm process node, while the Arc Pro B60 has a 5 nm node. Transistor count is 1,270 million versus 19,600 million. Die size is 118 mm² versus 272 mm². The Quadro has a memory clock of 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, while the Arc Pro B60 has a base clock of 2000 MHz, a boost clock of 2400 MHz, and a memory clock of 2375 MHz with 19 Gbps effective speed.

Memory capacity is 2 GB versus 24 GB. Memory type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6. Bus width is 128 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 456.0 GB/s. Shading units are 384 versus 2560. TMUs are 32 versus 160. ROPs are 16 versus 80. The Arc Pro B60 has 20 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro has none. Pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 732.7 GFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 is not listed for the Quadro, while the Arc Pro B60 has 24.58 TFLOPS.

Power draw is 51 W for the Quadro K2000 versus 200 W for the Arc Pro B60. The Quadro is single-slot with no power connectors, while the Arc Pro B60 is dual-slot with one 8-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W for the Quadro and 550 W for the Arc Pro B60. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro and PCIe 5.0 x8 for the Arc Pro B60. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for the Arc Pro B60. Dimensions differ: the Quadro is 202 mm long and 111 mm high, while the Arc Pro B60 is 167 mm long, 69 mm high, and 40 mm wide. The Quadro is end-of-life, while the Arc Pro B60 is active. The Quadro has a predecessor in Quadro Fermi and a successor in Quadro Maxwell, while the Arc Pro B60 has neither.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Since there are no direct head-to-head benchmark results in the database, the comparison must rely on the recorded individual scores and the rival deltas. The Quadro K2000’s average score of 3964 places it 0.2% ahead of the GeForce 830M, 0.2% ahead of the Radeon R5 M420, and 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GT 745M. It is 0.3% behind the Radeon HD 6850 X2. These are extremely tight margins, meaning the Quadro K2000 sits right at the boundary of its performance cluster.

The Arc Pro B60’s average score of 3182 places it 0.6% ahead of the Quadro P1000, 3.5% ahead of the RTX 5080 SUPER, 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 640, and 3.2% behind the GeForce 920M. The RTX 5080 SUPER result is notable: the Arc Pro B60 leads a much newer and higher-tier GPU by 3.5% in the database’s average scoring, although the specific test suite for that rival is not detailed.

Looking at the Arc Pro B60’s individual scores, the Passmark G3D result of 14580 stands out as the strongest recorded number. The Passmark GPU Compute score of 7029 is also substantial. However, the DirectX 10 score of 61 and DirectX 12 score of 76 are very low, while the DirectX 11 score of 122 and DirectX 9 score of 179 are higher. This pattern suggests the Arc Pro B60 performs differently across API generations, with its best results in the G3D aggregate and compute workloads.

The Quadro K2000’s Geekbench scores are more consistent: Metal at 3630, OpenCL at 4071, and Vulkan at 4191. The Vulkan score is 15.5% higher than the Metal score. The OpenCL score is 12.1% higher than Metal. This consistency across three compute APIs indicates a stable compute architecture, even if the absolute numbers are far lower than the Arc Pro B60’s Passmark G3D result.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to a clear split. For users who need massive memory capacity, ray tracing support, high bandwidth, and modern API features, the Intel Arc Pro B60 is the only choice between the two. It offers 24 GB of memory versus 2 GB, 456.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s, 20 ray tracing cores versus none, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support versus DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level. The Arc Pro B60 also has a much higher transistor count and shading unit count, which translates to 16.8x higher FP32 compute and 25x higher pixel rate.

For users who prioritize low power draw, compact size, and compatibility with older systems, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 holds an edge. It draws 51 W versus 200 W, requires no power connectors, is single-slot, and uses PCIe 2.0 x16, which is compatible with older motherboards. It also has a higher percentile ranking at 24% versus 20%, and a higher average benchmark score of 3964 versus 3182, though this is based on non-overlapping test suites.

The recorded benchmark data does not show any direct head-to-head test, so the verdict rests on specification differences and the individual scores. The Arc Pro B60’s Passmark G3D score of 14580 is far higher than any score recorded for the Quadro K2000, but the Quadro’s Geekbench scores are all above 3600, while the Arc Pro B60’s Passmark DirectX scores fall below 180 in every API test. The Arc Pro B60 is clearly the more capable GPU for modern workloads, particularly those that leverage large memory pools and ray tracing. The Quadro K2000 remains a viable option for legacy environments where its low power draw and simpler design are advantages. The database suggests that the Arc Pro B60 is the appropriate pick for current professional rendering tasks, while the Quadro K2000 is better suited for basic display output in systems that cannot accommodate a 200 W dual-slot card.