Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. That is a 28.3% advantage for the Intel part. In practical terms, this means the Iris Pro delivers noticeably more compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, which are common in general-purpose GPU compute and certain professional applications. The Quadro 2000D does not have a recorded Vulkan score, so the Intel part's 3677 in Geekbench Vulkan stands as its additional measurable win, though there is no direct comparison to make there.

Looking at the broader database context, the Iris Pro's average benchmark score is 4360, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (a 0.6% delta), the GeForce 930M at 4388 (a -0.6% delta), and the GeForce GT 645M at 4411 (a -1.2% delta). The data shows the Iris Pro sits squarely in a cluster of mainstream and older discrete parts, trading blows within roughly a 2% band. Meanwhile, the Quadro 2000D's average score is 3930, landing in the 23rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Quadro K2000D at 3919 (a 0.3% delta), the GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (a -0.6% delta), and the Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (a -0.7% delta). The Quadro is similarly clustered, but at a lower performance tier overall.

The head-to-head delta is not a small gap. A 28.3% lead in OpenCL is substantial enough to change which workloads are viable. For any task that relies on raw shader throughput, the Intel part is the clear winner in this matchup. The Quadro does not offer any benchmark where it beats the Iris Pro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies and process generations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip, built on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture and manufactured at 22 nm. Its process node is significantly smaller than the NVIDIA part, which uses the GF106 chip from the Fermi architecture, built at 40 nm by TSMC. That node difference has major implications for power draw and transistor density, though the Quadro has the advantage of having published transistor counts.

The Quadro 2000D packs 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The Iris Pro does not have published transistor or die size figures in the database, so a direct density comparison is not possible. The Quadro's 40 nm process is older and larger, which typically means higher power consumption for the same performance, but its 62 W TDP is actually lower than the Iris Pro's 45 W TDP? No, wait: the data shows the Intel TDP as 45 W and the NVIDIA TDP as 62 W. So the Intel part draws less power while delivering higher compute scores.

Memory configuration is another major split. The Iris Pro uses system-shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth listed as "System Dependent". This means its effective memory performance depends entirely on the host system's RAM and memory controller. The Quadro 2000D, by contrast, has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. For workloads that require consistent memory latency and bandwidth, a dedicated pool is often preferable, but the Intel part's larger shared pool (depending on system RAM) can be more flexible.

Shader resources differ notably. The Iris Pro has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part has far more shaders and TMUs, which explains its higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS). However, the Quadro's pixel rate is higher: 5.000 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s. That is a direct consequence of the Quadro having 16 ROPs versus the Intel part's 4 ROPs. So the Quadro can fill pixels faster, but the Intel part can do far more math per clock.

API support also differs. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. OpenGL 4.6 on the Quadro is a notable advantage for older professional OpenGL applications, while Vulkan support on the Intel part opens up modern cross-platform compute and gaming workloads.

Physical design is starkly different. The Iris Pro is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it lives on the CPU die and uses the motherboard for display outputs. The Quadro is a discrete single-slot card, 178 mm long (7 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), using PCIe 2.0 x16, with 2x DVI outputs and no power connectors required. The Quadro's suggested PSU is 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score is 28.3% higher, its FP32 throughput is 736.0 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS, and its texture rate is more than double at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. Any task that stresses shader math, such as general-purpose GPU compute, physics simulation, or image processing that uses OpenCL, will favor the Intel part. Its Vulkan support (score 3677) adds modern API compatibility that the Quadro entirely lacks. The 320 shading units provide a wide execution width, and the 45 W TDP means it does this at lower power draw than the Quadro's 62 W.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins in pixel-pushing and legacy compatibility. Its 16 ROPs deliver 5.000 GPixel/s, which is 8.7% higher than the Intel part's 4.600 GPixel/s. That makes the Quadro better suited for fill-rate-limited tasks, such as high-resolution 2D rendering, certain CAD viewport operations, or any workload that writes a lot of pixels per frame. Its dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable memory performance, unlike the Intel part's system-dependent shared memory. The OpenGL 4.6 support is a full version ahead of the Iris Pro's OpenGL 4.3, which matters for professional applications that rely on newer OpenGL features. The Quadro's 2x DVI outputs are fixed, whereas the Iris Pro's display outputs are motherboard-dependent, so the NVIDIA card offers a known, standalone display solution.

In the database's percentile rankings, the Intel part sits at 26th percentile versus the Quadro's 23rd. That is a small gap in overall standing, but the head-to-head OpenCL result shows a large gap in that specific test. The Quadro's nearest rival, the Quadro K2000D, is only 0.3% apart, indicating that the 2000D is closely matched with its direct successor in the K-series. The Iris Pro's nearest rival, the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, is 0.6% apart, which is surprising but reflects the average benchmark score rather than any specific workload.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the better overall performer in compute benchmarks. It wins the only head-to-head test by 28.3%, has higher FP32 throughput, higher texture rate, more shading units, and lower TDP. It also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro does not. For any user who prioritizes OpenCL compute, modern API compatibility, or power efficiency, the Intel part is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, however, has specific strengths that the Intel part cannot match. Its pixel rate is higher (5.000 GPixel/s vs 4.600 GPixel/s), its memory is dedicated rather than shared, and its OpenGL 4.6 support is newer than the Intel's 4.3. For legacy professional workflows that rely on OpenGL and need fixed DVI outputs, the Quadro remains a functional option. Its 16 ROPs make it more suitable for fill-rate-bound tasks.

Strictly from the data, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 should be picked for compute-oriented workloads, especially those using OpenCL or Vulkan, and for systems where power draw matters. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D should be picked for pixel-heavy legacy OpenGL applications, or for environments where a discrete card with dedicated memory and known display outputs is required. The 28.3% OpenCL delta is too large to ignore in favor of the Quadro unless the specific workload is fill-rate or OpenGL-version dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 28.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's score of 3930.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No. The database records no Vulkan support for the Quadro 2000D. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 does support Vulkan 1.0 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel Iris Pro uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, bus width, or bandwidth (bandwidth is "System Dependent"). The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 4.600 GPixel/s. The Quadro's 16 ROPs give it an advantage in fill-rate-limited work.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W. The Intel part draws less power.

Q: Which GPU has better OpenGL support?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D supports OpenGL 4.6, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 supports OpenGL 4.3. The Quadro has a newer OpenGL version.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Chip | Haswell GT3e | GF106 |

| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 238 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 200 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | Not listed |

| 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 | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 2x DVI |

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

| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | Not listed |

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

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

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Not listed | Quadro Kepler |