Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071 points against 3389 points for the Intel HD Graphics P4600. That represents a 20.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin in compute workloads. The Quadro K2000 wins the only head-to-head test recorded, giving it a 1 to 0 win tally.

Context from the nearest rivals list reinforces the significance of this gap. The Quadro K2000's average benchmark score sits at 3964, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitors are clustered tightly around it: the NVIDIA GeForce 830M trails by just 0.2%, the AMD Radeon R5 M420 is also 0.2% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M sits 0.3% lower. The only rival ahead is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, which leads by 0.3%. This tight grouping indicates that the Quadro K2000 performs at a very consistent level relative to its immediate peers.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, by contrast, averages 3389 and lands in the 20th percentile. Its nearest rival list shows a different competitive picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 scores 3431, which is 1.2% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434, also 1.2% higher. The Intel HD Graphics 530 trails by 1.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M is 2.2% behind. The P4600 therefore sits near the bottom of its immediate competitive cluster, while the K2000 sits near the top of its own.

The 20.1% OpenCL delta is not trivial. In compute-oriented tasks, a lead of this size can translate into noticeably shorter render times or faster simulation throughput. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two parts, with the discrete NVIDIA solution holding a comfortable edge over the integrated Intel graphics solution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Haswell GT2 chip under Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel's own fabs. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part, so no direct comparison is possible on those metrics.

The compute resource distribution differs sharply. The Quadro K2000 packs 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 2 ROPs. The ROP count disparity is particularly stark: the NVIDIA part has 8 times the pixel output capability of the Intel part. This explains the large gap in pixel throughput, with the K2000 delivering 7.632 GPixel/s versus 2.400 GPixel/s for the P4600. Texture throughput is closer but still favors NVIDIA, at 30.53 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. Floating point performance shows a similar pattern, with the K2000 reaching 732.7 GFLOPS compared to 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part.

Clock behavior also differs in kind. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, reflecting its adaptive power management as an integrated part. The Quadro K2000's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, but its memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz, translating to 4 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem is where the architectures diverge most fundamentally. The K2000 is a discrete card with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P4600 uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bus width and bandwidth figure. The P4600's memory bandwidth is therefore entirely dependent on the host platform's memory configuration.

API support shows generational differences. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The K2000 has a newer OpenGL implementation and a much newer Vulkan version. The Intel part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, though both are effectively capped at the 11.x feature set. Power characteristics also differ: the K2000 is rated at 51 W TDP, while the P4600 is rated at 84 W. The K2000 is a single-slot card requiring no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply, while the P4600 is an IGP with no separate power delivery requirements.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner, but the use-case analysis is more nuanced. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, and it wins by a substantial 20.1% margin. Its higher shading unit count, larger ROP count, and dedicated GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads. The 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is nearly double the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS, which directly benefits tasks such as 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and GPU-accelerated applications that scale with raw compute throughput.

The Quadro K2000 also holds the advantage in memory bandwidth, a critical factor for texture-heavy workloads and large dataset processing. The 64.00 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth avoids the contention and latency issues that come with system shared memory. The 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer provides predictable capacity for professional applications, whereas the P4600's available memory fluctuates with system configuration. The K2000's display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) also give it a fixed, known connectivity profile, useful for multi-monitor professional setups.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600's advantages are more situational. As an integrated part on a Ring Bus interface, it requires no additional card slot, no power connectors, and no discrete power supply headroom beyond what the host CPU already demands. Its 84 W TDP is part of the overall platform power envelope, not an additional burden. For office productivity, basic desktop compositing, and lightweight media playback, the P4600's 160 shading units and 24.00 GTexel/s texture rate are sufficient, and the boost clock of 1200 MHz helps it respond to transient loads. The 2.400 GPixel/s pixel rate, while low in absolute terms, is adequate for standard desktop resolutions and non-demanding interfaces.

The database also reveals the P4600's competitive position among integrated graphics. Its 3389 average score places it 1.7% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 530 and 2.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M. This suggests that within the integrated and low-end mobile GPU space, the P4600 is not an outlier on the low side; it sits slightly above some of its immediate peers. However, the 20.1% gap to the K2000 demonstrates that the discrete NVIDIA part operates in a higher performance tier entirely. The K2000's percentile ranking of 24 versus the P4600's 20 percentile reflects this separation in the broader GPU population.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | Intel HD Graphics P4600 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 7.5 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 118 mm² | Not listed |

| Shading units | 384 | 160 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 2 |

| Pixel rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 2.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| Memory size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory clock | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | Not listed |

| Base clock | Not listed | 350 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not listed | 1200 MHz |

| TDP | 51 W | 84 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.0 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not listed |

The specification table highlights the fundamental differences. The K2000 is a discrete card with its own memory and fixed display outputs, while the P4600 is fully integrated and dependent on the host platform for memory, bandwidth, and connectivity. The process node advantage goes to Intel at 22 nm, but the NVIDIA part compensates with a larger chip and more compute resources. The TDP figures are counterintuitive at first glance, with the integrated part drawing 84 W versus 51 W for the discrete card, but this reflects the P4600's inclusion in the CPU power budget rather than a standalone consumption figure.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 averages 3389.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the direct comparison?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against 3389 for the P4600, a 20.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, versus 160 for the Intel HD Graphics P4600.

Q: Do the two GPUs support different API versions?

A: Yes. The Quadro K2000 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the P4600 supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12, with the P4600 at feature level 11_1 and the K2000 at 11_0.

Q: How does memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is rated at 51 W TDP, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is rated at 84 W TDP.