Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two legacy graphics solutions into distinct usage profiles. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 takes the single recorded head-to-head win in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5042 against the Quadro 4000's 4979, a 1.2% margin. That OpenCL result places the Intel part in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile. The practical takeaway: the Iris Pro 5200 is the better choice for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, which often include video encoding, image processing filters, and general-purpose GPU tasks.

The Quadro 4000, however, should not be dismissed. Its average benchmark score of 4979 is nearly identical to the Iris Pro's OpenCL score, and its nearest rival comparison shows it trading blows with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (0.4% behind), and AMD Radeon R7 M360 (1% ahead). The Quadro's 29th percentile ranking means it outperforms roughly three out of ten GPUs in the database, a respectable position for a workstation card from 2010.

The Iris Pro 5200 also has a second benchmark result in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 3677. That gives it an average benchmark score of 4360 across two tests, while the Quadro has only one recorded result. If you need Vulkan support, the Intel part is the only option here, as the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan API entry in the database. For OpenGL workloads, the Quadro 4000 supports version 4.6 versus the Iris Pro's 4.3, which matters for older professional applications that rely on compatibility rather than raw compute.

In short: the Iris Pro 5200 wins on compute throughput and API breadth, while the Quadro 4000 wins on driver maturity for professional OpenGL workflows and holds its own in raw OpenCL performance despite being three years older.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro 4000 uses NVIDIA's Fermi architecture on a 40 nm TSMC process, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Iris Pro 5200 uses Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture (Haswell GT3e) on a 22 nm Intel process, with no transistor or die size figures recorded in the database.

The memory systems could not be more different. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro uses System Shared memory, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. That gives the Quadro a massive advantage in memory bandwidth consistency, while the Iris Pro's performance hinges entirely on the system's memory configuration.

Compute resources tell a different story. The Iris Pro has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Iris Pro has more shaders and TMUs, but far fewer ROPs. This explains the Iris Pro's higher texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s, while the Quadro's pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s beats the Iris Pro's 4.600 GPixel/s. The Quadro also produces higher FP32 throughput per clock relative to its shading unit count, but the Iris Pro's raw FP32 figure of 736.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Quadro's 486.4 GFLOPS due to its higher clock speeds.

Clocks are another differentiator. The Iris Pro has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The Quadro's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, only its memory clock. The Iris Pro's boost behavior allows it to scale up significantly under load, which contributes to its OpenCL win.

Power and physical design also differ sharply. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card drawing 142 W with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The Iris Pro is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) drawing just 45 W with no power connectors and no PSU recommendation. The Quadro measures 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the Iris Pro has no dimensions recorded because it lives on the CPU die. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Iris Pro uses a Ring Bus interface, meaning it does not occupy a PCIe slot at all.

API support also diverges. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. For modern applications that can use Vulkan, the Iris Pro is the only choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two parts: Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. That is a 1.2% difference in favor of the Intel part. While a 63-point gap is small in absolute terms, it does establish a consistent pattern: the Iris Pro's higher shading unit count and boost clock compensate for its shared memory system.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each part puts this result in context. The Quadro 4000's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which it beats by 1%. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB by 0.2%, a surprisingly close margin for a modern card. The Iris Pro 5200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, which it beats by 0.6%, and the AMD FirePro W2100, which it beats by 1.5%. Both parts are clustered within a narrow performance band around the 4300 to 5000 score range.

The only other benchmark recorded for either part is the Iris Pro's Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677. That result is notably lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Intel driver stack for Vulkan is less mature or the shared memory architecture limits Vulkan performance. The Quadro has no Vulkan benchmark at all, so it cannot be directly compared on that API.

The data shows that in the one test where both parts appear, the Iris Pro 5200 takes the win. However, the margin is small enough that real-world differences would depend heavily on system configuration, especially memory speed and capacity for the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4979.

Q: Can the Quadro 4000 run Vulkan applications?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan support for the Quadro 4000. The Iris Pro 5200 supports Vulkan 1.0 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 89.86 GB/s from its 256-bit GDDR5 bus. The Iris Pro uses System Shared memory with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, so it has no fixed bandwidth figure.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. The Iris Pro 5200 has a TDP of 45 W and requires no power connector.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer OpenGL version?

A: The Quadro 4000 supports OpenGL 4.6, while the Iris Pro 5200 supports OpenGL 4.3.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to modern cards?

A: The Quadro 4000 is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M360. The Iris Pro 5200 is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 and 1.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. For users who need Vulkan support, higher raw FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS), and lower power consumption (45 W versus 142 W), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the better choice. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, offers a boost clock up to 1150 MHz, and requires no dedicated power connector or expansion slot. Its texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s is more than triple the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s, which helps in texture-heavy workloads.

For users who need a dedicated video card with its own memory, the Quadro 4000 has clear advantages. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus provides consistent 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, unaffected by system memory speed. Its pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s is 65% higher than the Iris Pro's 4.600 GPixel/s, which matters for fill-rate-bound tasks like high-resolution rasterization. The Quadro also supports OpenGL 4.6 versus 4.3, a meaningful difference for legacy professional applications. Its nearest rival data shows it trading within 1% of modern cards like the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which is remarkable for a 2010 product.

The Iris Pro's average benchmark score of 4360 lands it in the 26th percentile, while the Quadro's 4979 lands in the 29th percentile. That percentile gap favors the Quadro, but the Iris Pro's Vulkan result and lower power envelope make it the more versatile option for integrated systems.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1150 MHz |

| Shading Units | 256 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.600 GPixel/s | 4.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.20 GTexel/s | 46.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 486.4 GFLOPS | 736.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 142 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

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

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.0 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2010-11-01 | 2013-06-02 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |