Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D takes the win decisively. The Quadro 2000D scores 3930 points, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389 points. That is a 16% lead for the NVIDIA card, which places it in a different performance tier despite both being entry-level parts by modern standards.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 sits at the 20th percentile. The gap may seem small in percentile terms, but the raw score difference is meaningful for OpenCL workloads. The Quadro 2000D's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919, only 0.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.7% ahead). This shows the Quadro 2000D is essentially neck-and-neck with those mobile and low-end desktop parts, which is a solid result for a workstation card from 2011.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431, 1.2% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434, 1.3% ahead), and it actually beats the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332, 1.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316, 2.2% ahead). So the P4600 is competitive with older mainstream integrated graphics and low-end discrete mobile GPUs, but it is clearly behind the Quadro 2000D in raw OpenCL compute performance.

The win count reflects this: the Quadro 2000D wins 1 benchmark, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 wins 0. That is a clean sweep in the recorded data, with no test where the Intel part comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 versus the Intel HD Graphics P4600's 3389, giving the NVIDIA card a 16% advantage in the single recorded benchmark.

Q: How does the Quadro 2000D compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro 2000D is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M, AMD Radeon R5 M420, and NVIDIA GeForce 830M, and it is only 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. This places it in a tight cluster of similar-performance GPUs.

Q: Is the Intel HD Graphics P4600 competitive with its nearest rivals?

A: The P4600 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 by 1.2% and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M by 1.3%, but it leads the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 1.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M by 2.2%. Its performance sits in a narrow band around the 3400-point mark.

Q: What does the percentile ranking mean for these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro 2000D ranks at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 ranks at the 20th percentile. Both are below average, but the Quadro 2000D is slightly higher in the distribution.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 2000D achieves 5.000 GPixel/s, which is more than double the Intel HD Graphics P4600's 2.400 GPixel/s. However, the Intel part has a higher texture rate at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the shading unit counts differ?

A: The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160. The NVIDIA card also has more ROPs (16 versus 2) and more TMUs (32 versus 20).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip built on the Fermi architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Haswell GT2 chip on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 22 nm process. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part, but the process node advantage is clear: 22 nm versus 40 nm means the Intel part uses a much more modern manufacturing technology.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The Quadro 2000D has dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses system shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all marked as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This is a critical architectural distinction: the NVIDIA card has its own fast VRAM, while the Intel part must share system memory, which introduces latency and bandwidth bottlenecks depending on the host system's RAM configuration.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro 2000D has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 650 MHz, translating to 2.6 Gbps effective. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, with memory speed tied to the system. The Intel part's boost behavior is typical for integrated graphics, ramping up under load and dropping when idle.

The compute resources show a mixed picture. The Quadro 2000D has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing 480.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 2 ROPs, producing 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 2.400 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card wins on raw compute and pixel throughput, but the Intel part has a higher texture rate at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s.

API support differs as well. The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Intel part has a slight edge in DirectX feature level and offers Vulkan, while the NVIDIA card has a newer OpenGL version.

Power and physical characteristics are also distinct. The Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W, is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and has 2x DVI display outputs. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a TDP of 84 W, uses a Ring Bus interface, has motherboard-dependent display outputs, and has no recorded dimensions or power connector requirements.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for OpenCL compute tasks: the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D. It leads by 16% in the recorded benchmark, has more shading units, more ROPs, dedicated GDDR5 memory, and a higher pixel rate. It also ranks higher in the overall GPU distribution at the 23rd percentile versus the 20th percentile.

However, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is not without its own advantages. It has a higher texture rate, a more modern manufacturing process (22 nm versus 40 nm), supports Vulkan 1.0, and has a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0). It also benefits from being an integrated part, meaning no extra card slot, no power connectors, and no dedicated memory purchase is needed.

For users who need raw compute performance and have a PCIe slot available, the Quadro 2000D is the stronger choice. For users building a system where integrated graphics are sufficient and power efficiency or simplicity matters more, the P4600 offers a lighter integration path. The Quadro 2000D is also a workstation card, which historically means certified drivers for professional applications, though the benchmark data only covers OpenCL.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and the Quadro 2000D launched with an MSRP of 599 USD in October 2011, while the P4600 has no recorded MSRP and launched in May 2013. Both are old parts by modern standards, so availability will be limited to used or refurbished channels.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D | Intel HD Graphics P4600 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GF106 | Haswell GT2 |

| Architecture | Fermi | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 41.60 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 192 | 160 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 2 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.000 GPixel/s | 2.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.00 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 480.0 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 62 W | 84 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.0 |

| Length | 178 mm (7 inches) | Not recorded |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2011-10-04 | 2013-05-31 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins in scenarios that demand dedicated graphics memory and higher compute throughput. Its 16% OpenCL lead over the P4600 makes it the better choice for GPU-accelerated applications like rendering, scientific computation, or any workload that leverages OpenCL. The dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth means it does not compete with the CPU for system memory, which is a significant advantage in memory-intensive tasks. Its higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s versus 2.400 GPixel/s) also makes it better suited for high-resolution display output or multi-monitor setups using its 2x DVI outputs. Additionally, its higher FP32 throughput (480.0 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS) gives it an edge in general-purpose compute.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600 wins in scenarios where system integration and texture throughput matter more than raw compute. Its higher texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s) could benefit texture-heavy workloads, though the 2 ROPs limit pixel output. Its support for Vulkan 1.0 and DirectX 12 (11_1) means it can run newer graphics APIs, which could be relevant for compatibility with modern software that requires Vulkan. The 22 nm process node makes it more power-efficient per transistor, though its TDP of 84 W is actually higher than the Quadro 2000D's 62 W. As an integrated part, it has no additional card footprint, no power connector requirement, and its memory is flexible, scaling with whatever system RAM is installed.

For a dedicated workstation or compute role, the Quadro 2000D is the clear pick. For an integrated solution where the user needs Vulkan support or wants to avoid adding a discrete card, the P4600 is the only option. The data does not show any benchmark where the P4600 wins, so any decision favoring Intel must rest on features like API support, integration, and texture rate rather than measured performance.