GPU Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from 2013, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Iris Pro is Intel’s integrated graphics flagship from the Haswell generation, while the Quadro K2100M is NVIDIA’s professional mobile workstation chip based on Kepler. Despite their age, benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close contest, with each taking one decisive victory in the available head-to-head tests. Their overall percentile rankings are nearly identical — 26th for the Intel part versus 25th for the NVIDIA — and their average benchmark scores differ by only 5%, making this a nuanced comparison rather than a clear knockout.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmarks split the win column evenly. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 posts a score of 5042, defeating the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s 4587 by a margin of 9.9%. This is a substantial lead for an integrated processor’s GPU against a dedicated mobile workstation chip. The OpenCL test often favors memory bandwidth and compute throughput, and the Iris Pro’s 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 rating, combined with its 320 shading units, appears to give it an edge in raw parallel compute workloads.

The reverse happens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins decisively with a score of 4343 against the Intel’s 3677, a difference of 15.3% in NVIDIA’s favor. Vulkan is a lower-level API that rewards efficient driver overhead and hardware scheduling, areas where a dedicated GPU with its own memory controller typically excels. The Quadro’s 576 shading units and 16 ROPs likely contribute to this victory, as does its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth, which avoids the Intel part’s system-shared memory bottleneck.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story of near-parity. The Intel Iris Pro averages 4360 across its two tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro averages 4151 across its three tests. Intel’s average is 5% higher, but this is skewed by the NVIDIA part having an additional Metal benchmark (3524) that drags its average down. When looking strictly at the shared tests, the Intel part wins OpenCL and the NVIDIA part wins Vulkan, leaving no overall champion in the head-to-head comparison. The deltaPct figures in the nearestRivals data further contextualize this: the Iris Pro’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (0.6% lower), while the Quadro K2100M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170 (0.4% lower), placing both firmly in the same performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two parts is vast. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, using the Haswell GT3e chip under the Generation 7.5 architecture. It operates as an IGP with a ring bus interface, meaning it shares system memory and has no dedicated VRAM — its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as "System Shared," with bandwidth noted as "System Dependent." Its clock speeds range from a 200 MHz base to a 1150 MHz boost, and it packs 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and just 4 ROPs. The pixel rate is 4.600 GPixel/s and texture rate is 46.00 GTexel/s, resulting in 736.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, by contrast, uses the GK106S chip fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, under the Kepler architecture. It is a discrete MXM Module with a 128-bit memory bus, 2 GB of GDDR5, and 48.13 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. Its base and boost clocks are both locked at 667 MHz, which is lower than the Intel’s boost, but it compensates with 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This yields a pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s — 74% higher than the Intel part — but a texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s, which is 30% lower. Its FP32 output is 768.4 GFLOPS, marginally ahead of the Intel’s 736.0 GFLOPS despite the lower clocks, thanks to the wider shader count. The transistor counts also differ starkly: the Quadro has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die (11.5M / mm² density), while the Iris Pro’s transistor count is not listed, a gap that reflects the different integration strategies.

API support further distinguishes them. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0, while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro’s newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.0) likely explains its 15.3% Vulkan victory, as the API’s evolution brought better memory management and reduced driver overhead. Additionally, the Quadro has a Metal benchmark score of 3524, indicating macOS compatibility, while the Iris Pro has no Metal result, limiting its Apple ecosystem relevance.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to clear use-case splits. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy, OpenCL-based workloads, as evidenced by its 9.9% lead in that test. Its higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s versus 32.02 GTexel/s) suggests it handles texture-heavy operations efficiently, which could benefit certain scientific or image-processing tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration. Its 45 W TDP is also 10 W lower than the Quadro’s 55 W, making it a more power-efficient choice for sustained compute in thermally constrained systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in modern graphics API scenarios, specifically Vulkan, where its 15.3% margin is substantial. Its 16 ROPs, compared to the Intel’s 4, give it a massive advantage in pixel-fill operations, making it better suited for rendering and display output. The 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth means it does not contend with the CPU for memory access, a critical factor in gaming or CAD applications where memory latency directly impacts frame times. Its 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 also edges out the Intel part, providing a slight compute advantage when the workload is properly optimized for NVIDIA’s architecture.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split: the Iris Pro sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro is at the 25th, meaning neither is a performance leader, but both are competent mid-tier options for their respective eras. The nearestRivals data shows the Iris Pro competing with the GeForce GT 645M (-1.2%) and GeForce 930M (-0.6%), while the Quadro trades blows with the GTX 1050 Ti (-1%) and Intel HD Graphics 630 (1.9%), placing them in similar performance strata despite their different architectures.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, which is 5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s 4151.

Q: What is the biggest performance margin in the head-to-head tests?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins Geekbench Vulkan by 15.3% (4343 vs 3677), which is a larger margin than the Intel’s 9.9% OpenCL victory (5042 vs 4587).

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel Iris Pro uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width — its bandwidth is "System Dependent." The NVIDIA Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, while the Intel Iris Pro has 320, a difference of 80% in NVIDIA’s favor.

Q: What are their respective process nodes?

A: The Intel Iris Pro is built on Intel’s 22 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro uses TSMC’s 28 nm process.

Q: Do both support Vulkan?

A: Yes, but at different versions — the Intel supports Vulkan 1.0, while the NVIDIA supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which contributes to its superior Vulkan benchmark score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node is 22 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size, while the NVIDIA has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. Clock speeds: Intel runs at 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 667 MHz for both base and boost. Memory is the starkest difference — Intel uses System Shared memory with no dedicated bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 48.13 GB/s. Shading units are 320 vs 576, TMUs are 40 vs 48, and ROPs are 4 vs 16, favoring NVIDIA in all three. Pixel rate is 4.600 GPixel/s for Intel versus 8.004 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, while texture rate reverses: 46.00 GTexel/s for Intel versus 32.02 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is close: 736.0 GFLOPS vs 768.4 GFLOPS. TDP is 45 W for Intel versus 55 W for NVIDIA. The slot width is IGP for Intel versus MXM Module for NVIDIA, with the bus interface being Ring Bus versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are Motherboard Dependent versus Portable Device Dependent. API support differs: DirectX 12 (11_1) vs 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.3 vs 4.6, Vulkan 1.0 vs 1.2.175. The NVIDIA also has a Metal benchmark score, which the Intel lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, split. For users prioritizing compute throughput in OpenCL-based applications, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the superior choice, offering a 9.9% performance advantage and a 10 W lower TDP, making it ideal for power-conscious systems where integrated graphics suffice. Its higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) also suggests better performance in texture-bound workloads, even if its 4 ROPs severely limit pixel output.

For users requiring modern graphics API support or working in Vulkan-based environments, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the definitive winner, with a 15.3% lead in that benchmark and a significantly newer Vulkan implementation (1.2.175 vs 1.0). Its 16 ROPs and dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth make it the only viable option for rendering tasks or applications that cannot tolerate system-shared memory latency. The Quadro’s 576 shading units and 768.4 GFLOPS FP32 also provide a modest compute edge that could matter in properly optimized professional workloads.

Neither part is a performance champion — both sit in the 25th percentile of all GPUs — but their strengths are complementary. The Intel is a low-power compute specialist with a texture advantage, while the NVIDIA is a memory-rich renderer with modern API support. The choice depends entirely on the workload: OpenCL and power efficiency point to Intel, while Vulkan, pixel throughput, and dedicated memory point to NVIDIA. The data does not support a universal recommendation, only a workload-specific one.