Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct comparison between these two mobile graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scored 5042 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scored 3718 points. That is a decisive 35.6% advantage for the Intel part. The Intel GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark where both have recorded scores, giving it a 1-0 win record in the database.

To put that margin into perspective, the Intel part's average benchmark score of 4360 places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (a 0.6% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388 (0.6% behind Intel), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M at 4411 (1.2% behind), and the AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295 (1.5% ahead of that rival). The Intel GPU sits in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile and entry desktop parts, but its OpenCL score is substantially higher than the Quadro's.

The Quadro 3000M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3718, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717 (a 0.0% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M at 3740 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 825M at 3694 (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.9% ahead). The Quadro's single recorded OpenCL score of 3718 is essentially identical to that of the GT 740M, which shows that its compute performance aligns with older mainstream mobile GPUs rather than high-end professional parts.

The key takeaway from the benchmark data is clear: in raw OpenCL compute performance, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M by more than a third. That is not a marginal difference. It is a substantial generational gap in compute throughput, and it shows up despite the Quadro having dedicated GDDR5 memory and a 256-bit memory bus. The Intel part's advantage in this test likely stems from its much higher texture rate and FP32 throughput, which we will examine next.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different architectural generations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is built on the GF104 chip, using NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, and it is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this process gap: the Quadro 3000M contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel part does not have recorded transistor or die size data, so no direct comparison is possible there.

The Intel part's clock behavior is fully documented: it runs at a base clock of 200 MHz and boosts up to 1150 MHz. The Quadro 3000M has no base or boost clock recorded, but its memory clock is listed at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM, while the Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part's memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, which is a fundamental architectural difference: one solution relies on the host system's RAM, while the other has its own dedicated memory pool.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Intel GPU has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Both have the same number of TMUs, but the Intel part has 33% more shading units and dramatically fewer ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the Intel part achieves 4.600 GPixel/s, while the Quadro achieves 4.500 GPixel/s. Nearly identical, despite the Quadro having 8 times the ROP count. The texture rate is where Intel dominates: 46.00 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro. That is a 2.56x advantage in texturing throughput. FP32 compute follows the same pattern: the Intel GPU delivers 736.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro delivers 432.0 GFLOPS, a 70% advantage for Intel.

The Quadro's architecture also includes dedicated memory features that the Intel part lacks entirely, such as a fixed 80.00 GB/s bandwidth figure versus "System Dependent" for Intel. The bus interfaces differ as well: Intel uses a Ring Bus and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while NVIDIA uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is an MXM Module. Power consumption is another differentiator: the Intel part has a 45 W TDP, while the Quadro is rated at 75 W. The Quadro has no power connectors listed, while the Intel part has none either, but the Intel IGP draws less power overall.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. That is a 35.6% lead for the Intel part in this specific test.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between these two GPUs?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes and foundries for each chip?

A: The Intel part is fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel, using the Haswell GT3e chip. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, using the GF104 chip.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and what does that mean for compute?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 240. The Intel part also delivers 736.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro, meaning Intel has a 70% advantage in raw floating-point throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W. This makes the Intel part more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The Intel GPU achieves 46.00 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro achieves 18.00 GTexel/s. The Intel part is more than 2.5 times faster in texture throughput.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Haswell GT3e versus GF104
• Architecture: Generation 7.5 versus Fermi
• Process Node: 22 nm versus 40 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: Not recorded for Intel; 1,950 million for NVIDIA
• Die Size: Not recorded for Intel; 332 mm² for NVIDIA
• Transistor Density: Not recorded for Intel; 5.9M / mm² for NVIDIA
• Base Clock: 200 MHz for Intel; not recorded for NVIDIA
• Boost Clock: 1150 MHz for Intel; not recorded for NVIDIA
• Memory Clock: System Shared for Intel; 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA
• Memory Size: System Shared for Intel; 2 GB for NVIDIA
• Memory Type: System Shared for Intel; GDDR5 for NVIDIA
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared for Intel; 256 bit for NVIDIA
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent for Intel; 80.00 GB/s for NVIDIA
• Shading Units: 320 for Intel; 240 for NVIDIA
• ROPs: 4 for Intel; 32 for NVIDIA
• Pixel Rate: 4.600 GPixel/s for Intel; 4.500 GPixel/s for NVIDIA
• Texture Rate: 46.00 GTexel/s for Intel; 18.00 GTexel/s for NVIDIA
• FP32: 736.0 GFLOPS for Intel; 432.0 GFLOPS for NVIDIA
• TDP: 45 W for Intel; 75 W for NVIDIA
• Slot Width: IGP for Intel; MXM Module for NVIDIA
• Power Connectors: None for both, but listed differently (no connectors for either)
• Bus Interface: Ring Bus for Intel; MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA
• Display Outputs: Motherboard Dependent for Intel; Portable Device Dependent for NVIDIA
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) for Intel; 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA
• OpenGL Support: 4.3 for Intel; 4.6 for NVIDIA
• Vulkan Support: 1.0 for Intel; not recorded for NVIDIA
• Release Date: 2013-06-02 for Intel; 2011-02-21 for NVIDIA
• Predecessor: Not recorded for Intel; Quadro FX Mobile for NVIDIA
• Successor: Not recorded for Intel; Quadro Kepler-M for NVIDIA

The TMU count is identical at 40 for both GPUs, and neither has recorded RT cores or tensor cores. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the faster GPU in compute workloads. Its OpenCL score is 35.6% higher than the Quadro 3000M, its FP32 throughput is 70% higher, and its texture rate is more than double. The Quadro's advantages are limited to memory configuration, ROP count, and OpenGL version support.

The Intel part wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, and its average benchmark score of 4360 places it 17% above the Quadro's 3718. The Intel part also sits in a higher percentile bracket (26th versus 22nd), confirming that it outperforms more of the overall GPU population.

The Quadro 3000M is an older product, released in 2011, while the Intel part came in 2013. The Quadro uses the Fermi architecture from NVIDIA, which was already one generation behind when the Intel Haswell GT3e shipped. The process node difference alone, 22 nm versus 40 nm, explains much of the efficiency and clock speed gap.

For users who prioritize raw compute and texturing performance, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the better choice. For users who need dedicated memory with fixed bandwidth, the Quadro has a structural advantage, but that does not translate into higher benchmark scores in the recorded data. The OpenGL 4.6 support on the Quadro is the only feature where NVIDIA leads the Intel part's OpenGL 4.3.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in:

• OpenCL compute: 5042 versus 3718, a 35.6% lead.
• FP32 floating-point throughput: 736.0 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS, a 70% advantage.
• Texture fill rate: 46.00 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, more than double the Quadro.
• Pixel fill rate: 4.600 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s, a small but real lead.
• Shading unit count: 320 versus 240, 33% more compute cores.
• Power efficiency: 45 W TDP versus 75 W TDP, meaning less power draw for higher performance.
• Vulkan support: 1.0 versus none recorded for the Quadro.
• DirectX feature level: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0), one minor revision ahead.
• Average benchmark score: 4360 versus 3718, placing it 17% higher overall.

NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins in:

• Memory configuration: 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 versus system shared memory. The 80.00 GB/s fixed bandwidth is a structural advantage for workloads that require consistent memory access without competing with the CPU.
• ROP count: 32 versus 4. While the pixel rate ends up nearly equal, the higher ROP count suggests the Quadro may handle certain rasterization workloads differently.
• OpenGL version: 4.6 versus 4.3, a newer API support level.
• Transistor and die data: 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die are recorded, while the Intel part has no such data, indicating a more complex and physically larger chip.
• Bus interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus Ring Bus. The MXM form factor allows for modular replacement in laptops, while the Intel IGP is fixed to the motherboard.

Use-case split based on the data:

• Choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 for general compute, OpenCL workloads, texturing-heavy tasks, and scenarios where power draw matters. Its 45 W TDP and higher GFLOPS make it the better all-around performer in the recorded benchmarks.
• Choose the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M only if your workload specifically requires dedicated VRAM with guaranteed 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, or if you need OpenGL 4.6 support. Its lower compute scores and older architecture make it a niche pick.

In practical terms, the Intel part is the faster GPU in almost every measurable compute metric. The Quadro's dedicated memory is its only real selling point, and that does not compensate for the 35.6% OpenCL deficit. If you are comparing these two for a mobile workstation or laptop upgrade, the benchmark data favors Intel without ambiguity.