Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The data presents a fascinating clash between two very different interpretations of a mobile or compact graphics solution from the same era. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is an integrated GPU, embedded within a Haswell processor, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is a discrete, professional-grade card. Their overall performance profiles are remarkably close, with the Intel part holding a slight edge in average benchmark scores at 4360 versus 3964 for the NVIDIA, a difference of about 10%. However, the nature of their wins is starkly different, pointing to distinct architectural strengths and weaknesses. The Iris Pro takes a decisive victory in OpenCL, while the Quadro counters in Vulkan, suggesting that the choice between them depends heavily on the specific application and API in question.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. Its score of 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL is not only 23.9% higher than the Quadro K2000's 4071 but also places it just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 in that specific test, which is a remarkable data point for an integrated solution. This suggests that for tasks like video encoding, image processing, or other compute-heavy applications that can utilize OpenCL, the Iris Pro is the superior performer. Its 26th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 24th reinforces this slightly higher standing in the overall benchmark hierarchy.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000, however, is the card to pick for graphics workloads that are more reliant on the Vulkan API. It wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4191, a 12.3% advantage over the Iris Pro's 3677. This is likely due to its dedicated memory and architecture optimized for professional rendering, where newer graphics APIs are better utilized. For users working with software that has a strong Vulkan backend, the Quadro offers a tangible performance benefit. The data suggests a split decision: the Iris Pro is the compute champion, while the Quadro K2000 is the graphics API specialist.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental difference lies in their construction. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built on Intel's 22 nm process, using the Haswell GT3e chip and part of the Generation 7.5 architecture. Its memory is "System Shared," meaning it relies on the main system RAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is a discrete card built on TSMC's 28 nm process, using the GK107 chip with the Kepler architecture. It comes with its own dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a fixed 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is a key advantage for the Quadro, as it doesn't have to compete with the CPU for bandwidth.

The compute resources are also organized differently. The Intel part has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), but only 4 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA card has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and a significantly higher 16 ROPs. This explains the performance split: the Iris Pro's higher TMU count and texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s (versus 30.53 GTexel/s for the Quadro) help it in compute-oriented tasks, while the Quadro's superior ROP count and pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s (versus 4.600 GPixel/s) are more beneficial for traditional rasterization. The Quadro also has a dedicated transistor count of 1,270 million on a 118 mm² die, while the Intel's transistor count is not specified in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a higher average benchmark score of 4360, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's 3964. This places the Intel part in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits in the 24th percentile.

Q: Is the integrated Intel GPU faster than the discrete NVIDIA card in any test?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, which is 23.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's score of 4071 in the same test.

Q: Where does the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 show its strength?

A: The Quadro K2000 shows its strength in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 4191, beating the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's score of 3677 by a margin of 12.3%.

Q: What is the difference in their memory configurations?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system dependent and not a fixed specification.

Q: How does the performance of the Intel Iris Pro compare to a much newer, high-end GPU?

A: The data shows the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's average score of 4360 is just 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6's average score of 4335, according to its nearest rivals list. This is a surprising data point, though it is based on average scores and may not represent all workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification category. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on a 22 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses a 28 nm process. The Intel part has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz, whereas the Quadro's base and boost clocks are not specified in the data. The memory systems are entirely different: the Intel uses System Shared memory, while the Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute units also differ: the Intel has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, while the NVIDIA has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This leads to different fill rates, with the Intel achieving a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s and the Quadro achieving 30.53 GTexel/s. Conversely, the Quadro has a higher pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s compared to the Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s. The FP32 performance is nearly identical, with the Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS and the Quadro at 732.7 GFLOPS. The Quadro is a single-slot card that is 202 mm long, while the Intel is an IGP. The Quadro supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro K2000 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides a clear, two-test picture of their capabilities. The most significant win for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, it scores 5042 against the Quadro's 4071, a difference of 23.9%. This is a substantial margin and indicates a major advantage for the Intel part in compute tasks that can be parallelized across its 320 shading units and 40 TMUs. The high texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s likely contributes to this strong OpenCL showing.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000's biggest win is in the Geekbench Vulkan test. It scores 4191, while the Intel part manages 3677, giving the Quadro a 12.3% lead. This victory is likely tied to its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and its 16 ROPs, which are more efficient for the draw calls and rendering pipelines often used in Vulkan applications. The Quadro's higher pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s supports this interpretation, as it can fill the screen more efficiently. While the Intel part has a higher average score overall, the head-to-head results show a perfect split, with each GPU winning one test by a significant margin.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its 23.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for applications that use this API for general-purpose computing, such as certain video editing, encoding, or physics simulation tasks. The data suggests that its higher texture rate and FP32 performance of 736.0 GFLOPS allow it to excel in these parallel compute workloads, despite being an integrated part with system-shared memory.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins in graphics-centric tasks that utilize the Vulkan API. Its 12.3% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan points to a strength in modern game engines or professional visualization software that have adopted this API. The combination of its dedicated 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 16 ROPs makes it more effective at handling the rendering pipeline's final stages. Therefore, for users running Vulkan-based applications, the Quadro K2000 provides a measurable performance advantage, even though it trails in the overall average score and in OpenCL tests.