Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs, and it is a decisive result. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 points against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919 points. That is a 28.7% advantage for the Intel part, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput.

This single benchmark result carries significant weight. The Iris Pro's score of 5042 places it in a curious neighborhood. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 with an average score of 4335, a delta of 0.6% in favor of the Intel chip, and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388, which is 0.6% behind the Iris Pro. The Iris Pro also sits 1.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100, which averages 4295. The data suggests the Iris Pro, despite being an integrated solution from 2013, punches well above its weight class in synthetic compute workloads.

The Quadro K2000D, by contrast, lands at 3919 in its sole recorded benchmark. Its nearest rival list is tighter. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, a 0.3% delta in favor of that card, while the Quadro 2000 trails at 3898, putting the K2000D 0.5% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M scores 3953, which is 0.9% better than the K2000D, and the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics sits at 3883, a 0.9% deficit for that AMD part. The K2000D's percentile rank of 23 versus the Iris Pro's 26 reflects this performance hierarchy.

What is notable here is that the Intel integrated GPU, which shares system memory with the CPU, outperforms a dedicated professional workstation card with its own dedicated GDDR5 memory. The 28.7% delta is not marginal; it is a clear win in the only measured category. However, the database shows only one benchmark for this pair, so conclusions about gaming, professional applications, or driver-specific workloads remain speculative. The recorded data cannot confirm whether this OpenCL advantage translates to real-world tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and manufacturing ecosystems. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip, built on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, specifically the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. It is fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, and is manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process.

Transistor counts and die sizes are only recorded for the Quadro. The GK107 packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Iris Pro has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, so a direct density comparison is impossible. However, the process node difference is meaningful: Intel's 22 nm process is denser than TSMC's 28 nm node, which likely explains how the Iris Pro fits its 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs into an integrated die.

The Quadro K2000D counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The shading unit count favors NVIDIA by 64 units, but the TMU count favors Intel by 8. The ROP count is a decisive NVIDIA advantage: 16 versus 4. This ROP disparity shows up in pixel throughput. The Quadro achieves 7.632 GPixel/s while the Iris Pro manages only 4.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate flips the script: the Iris Pro delivers 46.00 GTexel/s against the Quadro's 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is nearly identical: 736.0 GFLOPS for Intel versus 732.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, a difference of just 0.45%.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part's memory clock is listed as "System Shared" with a "System Dependent" bandwidth figure, meaning its performance scales with the host system's RAM configuration.

The bus interface also diverges. The Iris Pro uses Intel's Ring Bus, typical for integrated graphics, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the Iris Pro's are motherboard dependent, while the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. API support shows a split: the Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro's newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions suggest better long-term driver support for professional applications.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner in raw compute: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. Its 5042 OpenCL score is 28.7% above the Quadro K2000D's 3919, and its 26th percentile rank versus the Quadro's 23rd confirms the relative standing. For workloads that stress OpenCL compute, the integrated Intel GPU is the better choice.

However, the Quadro K2000D is not without merit. Its 16 ROPs and 7.632 GPixel/s pixel rate suggest stronger fill-rate performance, which could benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable memory performance, unlike the Iris Pro's system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro also supports newer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175, which could matter for compatibility with modern professional software.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. For OpenCL compute benchmarks, the Iris Pro wins outright. For scenarios where pixel throughput, dedicated memory, or newer API versions are critical, the Quadro's specifications may carry the day, but no benchmark in the database confirms this. The single recorded test leaves many questions unanswered.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

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

| Chip | Haswell GT3e | GK107 |

| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Kepler |

| Generation | HD Graphics (Haswell) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 10.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 64.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 4 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.600 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.00 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 736.0 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 51 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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 202 mm (8 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Not recorded | Quadro Maxwell |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 28.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in FP32 compute performance?

A: They are nearly identical. The Iris Pro delivers 736.0 GFLOPS while the Quadro K2000D delivers 732.7 GFLOPS, a difference of only 0.45%.

Q: Which GPU has more ROPs and what does that mean?

A: The Quadro K2000D has 16 ROPs compared to the Iris Pro's 4. This contributes to the Quadro's higher pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro K2000D supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Iris Pro supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12, but the Iris Pro supports 11_1 and the Quadro supports 11_0.

Q: What are the TDP differences between these two GPUs?

A: The Iris Pro has a TDP of 45 W, while the Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The Quadro also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in OpenCL compute, and the data is unambiguous. Its 5042 score against the Quadro's 3919 represents a 28.7% advantage, and its higher percentile rank (26 versus 23) reinforces this. The Iris Pro also leads in texture rate at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s, meaning it can process textured geometry faster. Its lower TDP of 45 W versus 51 W makes it more power-efficient on paper. The Iris Pro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro's 12 (11_0), a small but measurable feature advantage.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins in several specification categories. Its 16 ROPs versus 4 gives it a 4x advantage in pixel fill rate, reflected in the 7.632 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s figures. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, predictable memory performance that the system-dependent Iris Pro cannot guarantee. The Quadro also supports newer OpenGL (4.6 versus 4.3) and Vulkan (1.2.175 versus 1.0) versions, which could matter for compatibility with professional applications. Its 384 shading units outnumber the Iris Pro's 320, and the single-slot form factor with dedicated display outputs (2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2) makes it a drop-in solution for workstations, unlike the motherboard-dependent outputs of the integrated Intel GPU.

For use cases, the data suggests the Iris Pro for OpenCL-heavy compute tasks where its 28.7% benchmark advantage can be exploited. The Quadro K2000D is better suited for scenarios requiring high pixel throughput, dedicated memory, or newer API support, though the database does not provide benchmark confirmation for these specific workloads. The recorded data only proves one thing: in the single measured test, the integrated Intel GPU outperforms the professional NVIDIA card by a significant margin.