Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they serve completely different purposes. The Quadro P400 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, while the Iris Pro 5200 is an integrated GPU (IGP) from Intel’s Haswell generation. Benchmark results show a split decision: the Intel part wins the OpenCL test, while the NVIDIA part dominates Vulkan. This analysis breaks down the data to help you decide which one fits a specific workload.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear use-case separation. If your work involves legacy compute or general-purpose GPU acceleration through OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the stronger option. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5042 beats the Quadro P400’s 4249 by 15.7%. However, for modern graphics APIs and gaming or Vulkan-based applications, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the definitive choice, scoring 5119 in Geekbench Vulkan—a 39.2% lead over the Intel part’s 3677.

From a pure performance percentile standpoint, the two are nearly tied. The Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4684. The Iris Pro 5200 is at the 26th percentile, averaging 4360. That 1-percentile gap is negligible, but the average score difference of 324 points favors the NVIDIA card. The nearest rival data confirms this: the Quadro P400 is 0.6% slower than an AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and 1.2% faster than a GeForce GTX 970M, while the Iris Pro 5200 is 0.6% faster than a GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 and 1.5% faster than an AMD FirePro W2100. These comparisons suggest that despite similar percentiles, the Quadro P400 edges out the Intel IGP in overall compute.

For a PC builder, the verdict is simple: pick the Quadro P400 if you need a low-profile, low-power discrete card with modern API support. Pick the Iris Pro 5200 if you are building on an older Haswell platform and want to avoid a separate GPU, accepting that its Vulkan performance is significantly weaker.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a 1-1 split. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively. With a score of 5042 against 4249, it is 15.7% faster. This indicates stronger raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, likely due to its higher shading unit count (320 vs 256) and texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s vs 20.03 GTexel/s). The Intel part’s FP32 performance of 736.0 GFLOPS also exceeds the Quadro P400’s 641.0 GFLOPS, which aligns with this OpenCL advantage.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test by a wide margin. Its score of 5119 dwarfs the Iris Pro 5200’s 3677, a 39.2% advantage. This is a massive gap, pointing to superior driver optimization and hardware support for Vulkan. The Quadro P400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part only supports Vulkan 1.0. This API maturity difference likely explains the huge delta. The NVIDIA card also has a higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s vs 4.600 GPixel/s), which helps in rasterization-heavy tasks.

So, the split is: Intel wins on OpenCL compute, NVIDIA wins on Vulkan graphics. There is no overlap in these wins—each card has a distinct strength.

Architecture Differences

The two products are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip based on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip based on Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel. Its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Quadro P400 runs at a 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro 5200 has a much lower base clock of 200 MHz but boosts to 1150 MHz, and its memory is system shared with no dedicated clock. Memory configurations are starkly different: the Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

The compute units also differ. The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Iris Pro 5200 has more shading units (320) and TMUs (40) but only 4 ROPs. This explains the Intel part’s higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) but much lower pixel rate (4.600 GPixel/s) compared to the Quadro P400 (20.03 GPixel/s). The FP32 output is close, with Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS and NVIDIA at 641.0 GFLOPS, but NVIDIA has an FP16 rate of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), which is not listed for Intel.

Power and physical design are polar opposites. The Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Iris Pro 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, and relies on the motherboard for power. The NVIDIA card uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro P400 has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the Iris Pro 5200 is motherboard dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is significantly better. It scores 5119 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 39.2% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200’s 3677. The NVIDIA card also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part only supports Vulkan 1.0.

Q: Is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5042, beating the Quadro P400’s 4249 by 15.7%. This suggests stronger OpenCL compute performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The Quadro P400 has a lower TDP of 30 W compared to the Iris Pro 5200’s 45 W. The NVIDIA card also has a suggested PSU rating of 200 W, while the Intel part has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Quadro P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684, while the Iris Pro 5200 averages 4360. The NVIDIA card is also at the 27th percentile versus the Intel part’s 26th percentile.

Q: Do they support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: No. The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, while the Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.3. The NVIDIA card also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Intel’s Vulkan 1.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmarks tell a clear story of divergent strengths. Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 takes a solid lead. It scores 5042 against the Quadro P400’s 4249, a delta of -15.7% for the NVIDIA card. That 793-point gap is substantial. This result aligns with the Intel part’s higher shading unit count (320 vs 256) and its FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS, which exceeds the NVIDIA card’s 641.0 GFLOPS. For any OpenCL-based compute task, the data suggests the Iris Pro 5200 will finish faster.

The Geekbench Vulkan benchmark flips the script entirely. The Quadro P400 scores 5119, while the Iris Pro 5200 manages only 3677. That is a 1442-point difference, translating to a 39.2% win for NVIDIA. This is a dominant performance gap, far larger than the OpenCL delta. The reasons are clear from the specifications: the Quadro P400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part is limited to Vulkan 1.0. Additionally, the NVIDIA card’s pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s is over four times higher than the Intel part’s 4.600 GPixel/s, which helps in graphics-heavy Vulkan workloads.

Breaking down the wins, the Intel part’s victory is narrower in percentage terms (-15.7% vs +39.2%), meaning the Quadro P400’s Vulkan win is much more decisive than the Iris Pro’s OpenCL win. If you average the two scores, the Quadro P400 comes out ahead: (4249 + 5119) / 2 = 4684, versus (5042 + 3677) / 2 = 4360. That 324-point average difference favors NVIDIA, confirming that the Vulkan win outweighs the OpenCL loss in overall capability.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are stark and define each card’s role. The process node differs: the Quadro P400 is on 14 nm at Samsung, while the Iris Pro 5200 is on 22 nm at Intel. The transistor count is only listed for the NVIDIA card (3,300 million), as is the die size (132 mm²) and transistor density (25.0M / mm²). The Intel part has none of these listed.

Clock speeds vary widely. The Quadro P400 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and boost of 1252 MHz, with memory at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro 5200 has a base of 200 MHz and boost of 1150 MHz, with system shared memory. Memory is another major split: the NVIDIA card uses 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, but only 4 ROPs. This leads to different rates: the NVIDIA card has a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s and texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s, while the Intel part has a pixel rate of 4.600 GPixel/s but a higher texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is close, with Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS and NVIDIA at 641.0 GFLOPS, but only NVIDIA lists an FP16 rate of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64).

Power and physical specs are opposites. The Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W, is single-slot, uses PCIe 3.0 x16, has no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 200 W. It measures 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The Iris Pro 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, is an IGP, uses a Ring Bus, and has no dimensions or power connector data. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro P400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Intel part is motherboard dependent. Finally, the API support is better on NVIDIA: DirectX 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 vs 4.3, and Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.0. The release dates show the NVIDIA card launched in 2017-02-06, about four years after the Intel part’s 2013-06-02, explaining the feature gap.