Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly in favor of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. Across the single head-to-head test available in the database, the Iris Pro 5200 takes the win in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 5042 against the Quadro 2000's 3898, a margin of 29.3%. That is not a narrow edge; it is a decisive gap that places the integrated part firmly ahead of the dedicated workstation card in compute throughput.

For the Intel side, the strength lies in raw OpenCL execution. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677, a metric the Quadro 2000 cannot match because it lacks Vulkan support entirely. This makes the Intel part the more versatile option for modern API workloads, even if its DirectX support is capped at 12 (11_1) compared to the Quadro's 12 (11_0). The Iris Pro's average benchmark score of 4360 reinforces its position, sitting 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6's average of 4335 and 1.5% above the AMD FirePro W2100's 4295.

The Quadro 2000, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark victories in this comparison. Its only listed result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 3898, which lands 29.3% behind the Iris Pro. Its average benchmark score of 3898 is also lower, and its percentile ranking among all GPUs is 23 versus the Intel part's 26. That percentile gap matters: the Iris Pro sits in a slightly higher tier of overall performance, while the Quadro 2000 trails not only the Intel part but also close rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (3919) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930), which both edge it out by 0.5% and 0.8% respectively.

In practical terms, the data suggests the Iris Pro 5200 is the better choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, while the Quadro 2000 offers no measurable advantage in the recorded tests. The Quadro's role as a workstation card may imply strengths in driver certification or specific professional software, but the benchmark numbers do not support a performance win here.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and entirely different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip using a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundry, part of the Generation 7.5 architecture. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it shares system memory rather than using dedicated VRAM. Its base clock is 200 MHz with a boost of 1150 MHz, and memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent" since it relies on the host system's RAM.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is a discrete card based on the GF106 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It belongs to the Fermi architecture and the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. Unlike the Intel part, it has dedicated memory: 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 2.6 Gbps. The Quadro connects via PCIe 2.0 x16, has a single-slot form factor, and draws power without auxiliary connectors.

Transistor counts and die sizes highlight the generational gap. The Quadro 2000 packs 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die with a density of 4.9M per mm². The Iris Pro's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but its 22 nm process is significantly more advanced than the 40 nm node used by the Quadro. The Intel part also has a higher shading unit count: 320 versus the Quadro's 192. Its texture mapping units number 40 against 32, though the Quadro has more ROPs: 16 versus just 4 on the Intel side.

Feature support differs as well. The Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. Display outputs also diverge: the Intel part is motherboard dependent, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

Power consumption is notable. The Iris Pro is rated at 45 W TDP, reflecting its integrated nature, while the Quadro 2000 draws 62 W. The Quadro's suggested PSU is 250 W, a figure not applicable to the Intel part given its IGP status. Physically, the Quadro measures 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Iris Pro has no recorded dimensions since it lives on the motherboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a lopsided affair. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898. The delta is 29.3% in favor of the Intel part. That is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented workload, indicating the Iris Pro's 320 shading units and 736.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput translate into real-world OpenCL advantage over the Quadro's 192 shading units and 480.0 GFLOPS.

Look at the pixel and texture rates, and the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro 2000 has a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the Iris Pro's 4.600 GPixel/s. However, the Iris Pro dominates in texture rate: 46.00 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 20.00 GTexel/s. The texture rate gap aligns with the shading unit advantage, while the pixel rate edge reflects the Quadro's higher ROP count.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The Iris Pro averages 4360 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro averages 3898. The Intel part's nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, which averages 4335, a mere 0.6% behind. The Quadro 2000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883, which trails by 0.4%. This places both GPUs in similar performance brackets relative to their peers, but the Iris Pro sits slightly higher within its bracket.

No other head-to-head tests are recorded. The database lists only one benchmark where both parts have entries, and the Intel part wins it outright. For workloads beyond OpenCL, such as Vulkan, the Iris Pro has a recorded score of 3677, but the Quadro has no comparable result, so no direct comparison is possible.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, with an average score of 4360, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000's 3898.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, which is 29.3% higher than the Quadro 2000's 3898.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000 support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan support for the Quadro 2000, while the Iris Pro 5200 has a Vulkan score of 3677.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory with bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 192.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 is rated at 45 W, while the Quadro 2000 is rated at 62 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

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

| Process Node | 22 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 4.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 200 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 4 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.600 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.00 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 736.0 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 62 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

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

| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | Not recorded |

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

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

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2010-12-23 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Not recorded | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 599 USD |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 26 | 23 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5042 | 3898 |