Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape. The Quadro 2000 is a dedicated, discrete workstation card built for professional tasks, while the P4600 is an integrated graphics processor embedded within a Haswell CPU. Their benchmark results reflect this fundamental divide, with the discrete solution holding a clear performance lead in the recorded OpenCL workload. The data in the database shows a 15% advantage for the NVIDIA card in the single head-to-head test available, which is a substantial gap for compute-oriented tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU processing.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split between these two parts is stark and largely defined by their physical design and target market. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 3898 against the Intel’s 3389. This 15% delta indicates that for applications which offload parallel compute tasks to the GPU, such as video encoding, physics simulations, or OpenCL-accelerated filters in creative software, the Quadro 2000 is the more capable option. Its dedicated memory subsystem and higher pixel throughput contribute directly to this advantage. The Quadro 2000 also holds a higher overall percentile rank, sitting at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, whereas the Intel HD Graphics P4600 sits at the 20th percentile. This suggests that even within the broader landscape of all graphics processors, the Quadro 2000 delivers more raw compute capability.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, by contrast, wins on integration and system-level simplicity. As an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, it requires no separate card, no power connectors, and no additional cooling. Its performance is classified as "System Dependent," meaning its memory bandwidth and effective speed vary with the host system’s RAM and configuration. This makes it a reasonable choice for basic desktop workloads, legacy application compatibility, or as a fallback display adapter. It does not win any benchmark comparisons in the database, but its value proposition lies in its zero-footprint nature rather than its processing speed. For systems where a discrete GPU is unnecessary, the P4600 provides a functional display output and modest compute capabilities without occupying a PCIe slot or drawing additional power beyond the CPU package.

In terms of specific wins, the record shows exactly one head-to-head test, and the Quadro 2000 takes it. There are no benchmark categories where the Intel part comes out ahead. The P4600’s texture rate, however, is higher at 24.00 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 20.00 GTexel/s, which hints that in fill-rate-limited scenarios, the Intel part might hold its own, though no direct benchmark confirms this. The Quadro counters with a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s compared to the P4600’s 2.400 GPixel/s, doubling the throughput for rasterization work. These raw specifications support the overall benchmark result: the Quadro 2000 is designed for heavier lifting.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is wide. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². This is a mature discrete GPU design with dedicated resources. It features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The memory system is equally dedicated: 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated VRAM is critical for professional applications that need consistent, high-speed memory access without competing with the CPU for system RAM.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600 is a fundamentally different beast. It is built on the Haswell GT2 chip, using Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process by Intel itself. The database does not record its transistor count or die size, reflecting its status as an integrated component sharing the CPU die. It has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 2 ROPs. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it borrows from the main system RAM, with bandwidth marked as "System Dependent." This shared memory architecture is the primary bottleneck for integrated graphics, as latency and bandwidth fluctuate based on the CPU’s memory controller and the installed RAM modules. The lack of dedicated VRAM means that any compute-heavy workload will contend with the CPU for memory access.

The clock behavior also differs. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, allowing it to scale up under load. The NVIDIA card’s base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, but its memory clock runs at 650 MHz, translating to 2.6 Gbps effective. This is a fixed, dedicated memory clock, whereas the Intel part’s memory speed is entirely dependent on the host system. The Quadro also supports a higher DirectX version (12 with 11_0 feature level) compared to Intel’s DirectX 12 (11_1 feature level), although both are end-of-life products. In OpenGL, the NVIDIA part supports 4.6, while the Intel part supports 4.3. The Intel part does list Vulkan 1.0 support, while the NVIDIA part’s Vulkan support is not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389. The NVIDIA card wins by a delta of 15%. This is a significant margin in compute performance, indicating that the Quadro 2000 completes OpenCL workloads approximately 15% faster than the integrated Intel solution. For context, the Quadro 2000’s nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, which scores 3883 (a 0.4% difference), and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, which scores 3919 (a 0.5% difference). This places the Quadro 2000 in a tight cluster of similar-performance GPUs, all within about 1.4% of each other. The Intel HD Graphics P4600, on the other hand, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which scores 3431 (a 1.2% difference), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, which scores 3434 (a 1.3% difference). It also edges out the Intel HD Graphics 530, which scores 3332 (a 1.7% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M, which scores 3316 (a 2.2% difference).

These rival clusters highlight the performance tiers. The Quadro 2000’s score places it just above the 3883 mark of the Radeon R5 Graphics, making it marginally faster than that integrated AMD solution. The P4600, by contrast, is slower than both the GT 740 and the Quadro 2000M, but faster than the HD Graphics 530 and the GT 730M. The 15% delta between the two reviewed parts is larger than the deltas seen within their respective rival groups, reinforcing that the discrete Quadro 2000 occupies a higher performance tier than the integrated P4600. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the Quadro 2000 is competitive with entry-level discrete graphics, while the P4600 is competitive with lower-end integrated and older mobile parts.

Specification Differences

Several key specifications separate these two GPUs. The process node differs: the Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel P4600 uses a 22 nm process from Intel. This gives the Intel part a manufacturing advantage in terms of size and power efficiency, though the database does not record its die size. The Quadro has 192 shading units versus the P4600’s 160. Texture units also favor NVIDIA at 32 versus 20. ROPs are heavily skewed: 16 on the Quadro versus only 2 on the Intel part, which explains the large pixel rate disparity. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s, more than double the P4600’s 2.400 GPixel/s. However, the texture rate reverses this: the Intel part achieves 24.00 GTexel/s against the Quadro’s 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is higher on the NVIDIA card at 480.0 GFLOPS, compared to 384.0 GFLOPS on the Intel part.

Memory is a major differentiator. The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s. The Intel P4600 uses System Shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth described as System Dependent. This makes the Quadro far more predictable in performance. The TDP also differs: the Quadro is rated at 62 W, while the Intel part is listed at 84 W, though this Intel figure likely represents the entire CPU package, not just the graphics portion. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, requiring no separate power. Display outputs on the Quadro include 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the Intel part’s outputs are Motherboard Dependent. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part uses the Ring Bus. Physical dimensions are recorded only for the Quadro: 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is faster, scoring 3898 in the Geekbench OpenCL test compared to the Intel HD Graphics P4600’s 3389, a 15% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P4600 have dedicated video memory?

A: No. Its memory is System Shared, meaning it uses the host system’s RAM, with bandwidth described as System Dependent.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, achieved with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do the shading units compare between the two?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160 shading units.

Q: Which part supports Vulkan?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P4600 lists Vulkan 1.0 support. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 does not have Vulkan support recorded in the database.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is listed at 84 W, though this likely reflects the entire CPU package.