Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and Intel HD Graphics P4600 represent two very different approaches to integrated and mobile graphics. The Quadro 2000M is a dedicated mobile workstation GPU built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, while the P4600 is an integrated graphics processor embedded within Intel’s Haswell CPUs. Benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest between these two, with the Quadro 2000M edging ahead by a narrow margin. The following analysis breaks down their performance, architectural differences, and ideal use cases based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole benchmark available for direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and it paints a picture of near-identical performance. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434 points, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389 points. This gives the Quadro 2000M a victory with a deltaPct of 1.3%. In practical terms, this means the Quadro 2000M is just 1.3% faster than the P4600 in this workload — a margin that is well within normal run-to-run variance for most applications.

Looking at the rival context, both GPUs sit at the same performance tier. The Quadro 2000M’s nearest rival list includes the Intel HD Graphics P4600 itself, with an average score of 3389 and a deltaPct of 1.3% relative to the Quadro. The Quadro also compares closely to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which scores 3431 and is just 0.1% faster. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX scores 3528, putting it 2.7% ahead of the Quadro 2000M, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 trails at 3332, which is 3.1% behind.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600’s rival list tells a similar story. It sits 1.2% behind the GeForce GT 740 (score 3431) and 1.3% behind the Quadro 2000M (score 3434). It is 1.7% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) and 2.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316). The data consistently places both the Quadro 2000M and the P4600 in the same performance band, with the Quadro holding a slim but consistent edge.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile of all GPUs, while the P4600 is at the 20th percentile. This one-percentile difference aligns with the 1.3% benchmark gap. Neither GPU is a performance powerhouse by modern standards, but they are clearly capable of similar levels of compute throughput in OpenCL workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro 2000M uses NVIDIA’s GF106 chip, built on the Fermi architecture. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 1,170 million transistors packed into a die size of 238 mm². This yields a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Haswell GT2 chip, belonging to Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture. It is built on a 22 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size provided in the data.

The memory subsystems differ dramatically. The Quadro 2000M features 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock runs at 900 MHz, with an effective data rate of 1800 Mbps. The P4600, by contrast, uses System Shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM. Its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as System Shared or System Dependent, indicating that performance will vary based on the host system’s RAM configuration.

Compute resources also differ. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The Intel P4600 has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 2 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the P4600’s clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the Quadro’s base and boost clocks are not listed. The higher clock speed on the P4600 partially compensates for its lower core count.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The Quadro 2000M achieves a pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s. The P4600 manages 2.400 GPixel/s but a higher texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s. This means the Quadro is stronger at pixel fill operations, while the Intel part excels at texture processing. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the P4600, giving the Quadro a 10% raw compute advantage.

API support also varies. The Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed. The 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 adds Vulkan support, while the Quadro offers a newer OpenGL version. Power consumption differs as well, with the Quadro rated at 55 W TDP versus 84 W for the P4600. However, the P4600 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) that shares power with the CPU, while the Quadro is a standalone MXM module.

The Verdict

The data points to an extremely close contest. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M wins the only benchmark comparison, but by a margin of just 1.3%. This is not a decisive victory by any stretch. For users who already have a system with Intel HD Graphics P4600, the performance difference is unlikely to be noticeable in real-world OpenCL tasks. The Quadro 2000M’s advantage lies in its dedicated memory and higher raw compute figures — 422.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS — which could matter in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, however, brings its own strengths. Its higher texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s) and support for Vulkan 1.0 make it a more versatile option for certain graphics APIs. It also benefits from sharing system memory, which eliminates the need for a separate VRAM allocation. For users building a system without a discrete GPU, the P4600 offers comparable performance to the Quadro 2000M at a much lower power footprint, assuming the host CPU is already required.

The choice between these two is largely academic today, as both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 2000M was released on 2011-01-12, while the P4600 came later on 2013-05-31. From a pure benchmark standpoint, the Quadro 2000M is the faster GPU by a hair. From a feature standpoint, the P4600 offers newer API support. The data shows no clear winner for general use; the Quadro edges ahead in compute, while the Intel part counters with better texture throughput and API coverage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Process node: Quadro 2000M uses 40 nm (TSMC); Intel P4600 uses 22 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million; P4600 has no listed count
• Die size: Quadro 2000M is 238 mm²; P4600 has no listed size
• Transistor density: Quadro 2000M is 4.9M / mm²; P4600 has no listed value
• Memory clock: Quadro 2000M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); P4600 has no dedicated clock, using system shared memory
• Memory size: Quadro 2000M has 2 GB DDR3; P4600 uses System Shared
• Memory bus width: Quadro 2000M is 128 bit; P4600 is System Shared
• Memory bandwidth: Quadro 2000M is 28.80 GB/s; P4600 is System Dependent
• Shading units: Quadro 2000M has 192; P4600 has 160
• TMUs: Quadro 2000M has 32; P4600 has 20
• ROPs: Quadro 2000M has 16; P4600 has 2
• Pixel rate: Quadro 2000M is 4.400 GPixel/s; P4600 is 2.400 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: Quadro 2000M is 17.60 GTexel/s; P4600 is 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: Quadro 2000M is 422.4 GFLOPS; P4600 is 384.0 GFLOPS
• TDP: Quadro 2000M is 55 W; P4600 is 84 W
• Slot width: Quadro 2000M is MXM Module; P4600 is IGP
• Bus interface: Quadro 2000M is MXM-A (3.0); P4600 is Ring Bus
• Display outputs: Quadro 2000M is Portable Device Dependent; P4600 is Motherboard Dependent
• OpenGL: Quadro 2000M supports 4.6; P4600 supports 4.3
• Vulkan: Quadro 2000M has none; P4600 supports 1.0
• DirectX: Quadro 2000M supports 12 (11_0); P4600 supports 12 (11_1)

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434, which is 1.3% higher than the Intel HD Graphics P4600’s 3389.

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

A: No, the P4600 uses System Shared memory for size, type, and bus width, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw FP32 compute?

A: The Quadro 2000M delivers 422.4 GFLOPS, while the P4600 delivers 384.0 GFLOPS, putting the Quadro ahead by about 10%.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: Only the Intel HD Graphics P4600 supports Vulkan, with version 1.0 listed. The Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The Quadro 2000M is rated at 55 W, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is rated at 84 W.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 2000M achieves 4.400 GPixel/s, which is nearly double the P4600’s 2.400 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M wins in raw compute and pixel throughput. Its FP32 performance of 422.4 GFLOPS surpasses the P4600’s 384.0 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s is far ahead of the P4600’s 2.400 GPixel/s. The dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth provides a consistent memory pool that does not depend on system RAM. This makes the Quadro 2000M the better choice for workloads that rely heavily on pixel operations or require predictable memory performance, such as certain CAD or visualization tasks common in mobile workstations.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600 counters with superior texture throughput. Its texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s exceeds the Quadro’s 17.60 GTexel/s, indicating that texture-heavy workloads may actually run faster on the Intel part. The P4600 also supports Vulkan 1.0, which the Quadro lacks entirely, and has a higher DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0)). For users running software that leverages Vulkan, the P4600 is the only viable option between the two. Its higher boost clock of 1200 MHz also suggests better burst performance in shorter workloads, although the base clock of 350 MHz is notably lower.

In terms of system integration, the P4600 as an IGP eliminates the need for a separate graphics card, while the Quadro 2000M requires an MXM slot. The Quadro’s lower TDP of 55 W versus 84 W is notable, but the P4600’s power consumption is shared with the CPU, making system-level comparisons complex. Ultimately, the data shows the Quadro 2000M leading in compute and pixel tasks, while the P4600 wins on texture throughput and API modernity. Users prioritizing OpenCL compute should lean toward the Quadro, while those needing Vulkan support or higher texture rates should pick the Intel part.