Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the available head-to-head benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the single head-to-head test (geekbench_opencl) with a score of 5042 versus 4241 for the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, a delta of 18.9%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile. The data shows they are extremely close in overall standing, despite the Intel part winning the head-to-head.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each, and what does that imply?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has an average score of 4241. The Intel part is roughly 1.2% higher on average, though the rival comparison lists show both parts trading places with similar competitors.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 (single-precision) compute rating?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a slightly higher FP32 rating at 753.4 GFLOPS, compared to 736.0 GFLOPS for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. This is a narrow margin of about 2.3% in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the differences in memory configuration?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth labeled as System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel rate, and what might that indicate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part. This suggests the NVIDIA part can handle fill-rate-heavy workloads more effectively, despite losing the compute-oriented OpenCL test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on Intel's Haswell GT3e chip, using a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the Generation 7.5 architecture lineup, specifically under the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Kepler architecture family under the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a revealing story. The NVIDIA part integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, which works out to a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not listed, but the process node difference (22 nm vs 28 nm) suggests Intel is packing more logic into a smaller area. However, the NVIDIA part's larger die is dedicated to discrete graphics work, whereas the Intel part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface.

The shading resources differ significantly. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. This is a stark difference in ROP count, which directly impacts pixel throughput. The NVIDIA part's texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s, while the Intel part's texture rate is higher at 46.00 GTexel/s — the Intel has fewer TMUs but runs them at much higher effective clocks due to its boost behavior.

Clock speeds reveal a significant architectural divergence. The Intel part has a base clock of 200 MHz with a boost of 1150 MHz, allowing it to scale aggressively under load. The NVIDIA part has a fixed clock of 654 MHz for both base and boost — no dynamic scaling is indicated. This explains how the Intel part achieves a higher texture rate despite fewer TMUs, and how it manages to win the OpenCL compute test.

The API support also differs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA part has a clear advantage in OpenGL and Vulkan versions, which could matter for legacy professional applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is geekbench_opencl, and the result is decisive. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241. That is an 18.9% delta in favor of the Intel part. This is a substantial margin for an integrated GPU against a discrete mobile workstation part.

What makes this result particularly interesting is the compute architecture. The Intel part has 320 shading units but a much higher boost clock (1150 MHz vs 654 MHz). The FP32 ratings are nearly identical — 736.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 753.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA — so the OpenCL win is not simply about raw FLOPs. The Intel part's higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s vs 31.39 GTexel/s) and its ability to dynamically boost likely contribute to the superior OpenCL score.

The NVIDIA part's strengths show up in other metrics, even though no head-to-head benchmark is available for them. Its pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s is 70% higher than the Intel part's 4.600 GPixel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s is a discrete-class figure, whereas the Intel part is System Dependent. These advantages do not appear in the OpenCL test, but they would matter in rasterization-heavy or memory-bound workloads.

The rival comparison tables provide additional context. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (deltaPct 0.6), NVIDIA GeForce 930M (deltaPct -0.6), NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (deltaPct -1.2), and AMD FirePro W2100 (deltaPct 1.5). The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's nearest rivals include AMD Radeon Vega 3 (deltaPct -0.6), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (deltaPct -1), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (deltaPct 1.2), and AMD FirePro W2100 (deltaPct -1.3). Both parts are clustered in the same performance tier, with the AMD FirePro W2100 appearing as a common reference point.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the only direct benchmark, and it wins by a wide margin — 18.9% in OpenCL compute. Its average benchmark score is also higher at 4360 versus 4241. For compute-oriented tasks that stress OpenCL, the Intel part is the clear choice.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has structural advantages that the benchmark data does not capture. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth is a fundamentally different resource than System Shared memory. Its 32 ROPs versus 4 ROPs gives it a massive fill-rate advantage — 7.848 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s. For professional graphics workloads that are fill-rate or memory-bandwidth bound, the NVIDIA part would likely perform better despite its loss in the compute test.

The TDP figures also indicate different deployment scenarios. The Intel part runs at 45 W and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it is integrated into a CPU package. The NVIDIA part runs at 75 W and is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, meaning it is a discrete, replaceable graphics module. This is not a question of which is faster in all cases, but which is appropriate for the intended platform.

The percentile rankings reinforce this ambiguity: 26th percentile for Intel versus 25th for NVIDIA. These are effectively tied. The Intel part should be chosen for platforms where compute performance matters and where its 22 nm integrated design fits the power envelope. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M should be chosen for professional mobile workstations where dedicated memory, high fill rate, and newer OpenGL/Vulkan support are more important than a single OpenCL benchmark.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node differs: 22 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry differs: Intel versus TSMC. The NVIDIA part lists 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die with a density of 12.0M per mm²; the Intel part lists none of these fields.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The Intel part has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost of 1150 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has a fixed 654 MHz for both base and boost. The memory configuration is entirely different: Intel uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute resources differ: 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs for Intel versus 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 4.600 GPixel/s for Intel versus 7.848 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 46.00 GTexel/s for Intel versus 31.39 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 is 736.0 GFLOPS for Intel versus 753.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

TDP is 45 W for Intel versus 75 W for NVIDIA. Slot width is IGP for Intel versus MXM Module for NVIDIA. Bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel versus MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA. Display outputs are Motherboard Dependent for Intel versus Portable Device Dependent for NVIDIA.

The API support differs: Intel has DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. NVIDIA has DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Release dates differ by roughly one year: the Intel part was released on 2013-06-02, while the NVIDIA part was released on 2012-05-31. The NVIDIA part has a named predecessor (Quadro Fermi-M) and successor (Quadro Maxwell-M), while the Intel part lists none.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its 18.9% advantage in the geekbench_opencl test is the clearest signal in the data. It also has a higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s) and a higher average benchmark score (4360 versus 4241). For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the Intel part is the stronger choice. Its 45 W TDP also means it fits into lower-power platforms, and its 22 nm process node suggests better power efficiency per unit of compute.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in memory-intensive and fill-rate-sensitive workloads. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth is a decisive advantage over System Shared memory. Its 32 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s — 70% higher than the Intel part — which matters for antialiasing, high-resolution rendering, and other pixel-bound operations. Its newer API support (OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175 versus OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0) makes it more suitable for modern graphics stacks. Its higher FP32 rating (753.4 GFLOPS) is a marginal win, but it is a win nonetheless.

The data also shows the NVIDIA part has a more robust specification package for professional deployment. The MXM Module slot width and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface mean it is designed to be swapped in and out of mobile workstations. The Intel part, as an IGP, is permanently fused to the CPU. The NVIDIA part's transistor count of 3,540 million on a 294 mm² die suggests a more complex, purpose-built chip, even if that complexity does not translate into a win in the single available benchmark.

Both parts are end-of-life, so the choice is about existing platforms rather than new purchases. For an existing Haswell-based system with an Iris Pro Graphics 5200, the data validates its compute capabilities. For an existing Kepler-based mobile workstation with a Quadro K3000M, the data validates its memory bandwidth and fill-rate advantages. The benchmark results indicate a split decision: Intel wins compute, NVIDIA wins memory bandwidth and pixel throughput. The user's workload dictates the correct choice.