Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into clearly different roles. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a decisive 60% margin. That single result defines its position: it is the stronger compute device for OpenCL workloads. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, by contrast, does not win any direct head-to-head test, but it offers multiple benchmark entries in the database (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), which suggests it was measured across a broader set of APIs. Its OpenCL score of 4556 is far below the Quadro’s 7289, but its Metal score of 7764 and Vulkan score of 6032 indicate that the Intel part performs better in those specific API environments than it does in OpenCL.

For use-case splitting, the Quadro 5000 is the pick for any task that relies on OpenCL acceleration, such as compute-heavy rendering or simulation workloads in professional applications. Its average benchmark score of 7289 places it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, which is above the Intel part’s 35th percentile. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, with its lower average of 6117, is better suited to integrated graphics scenarios where the workload is light or where the system uses a mix of APIs. The data shows that the Quadro’s lead in OpenCL is not marginal; it is a 60% gap, which is a substantial advantage in raw compute throughput.

The Intel part’s Vulkan support (version 1.0) and its Metal score of 7764 suggest it can handle modern graphics APIs reasonably well, but the absence of a Vulkan entry for the Quadro means the database cannot confirm how the Fermi-based card would fare in that API. The Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) support is present, but the Intel part lists DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly higher feature level. For a user prioritizing OpenCL, the choice is unambiguous. For a user prioritizing portability and low power, the Intel part has its own strengths, which are covered in the architecture section.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 uses the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density is 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses Generation 8.0 architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm process, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. The process node difference is stark: 40 nm versus 14 nm, which means the Intel part is built on a much more modern manufacturing process, but the Quadro compensates with a much larger die and dedicated memory.

The Quadro has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 raster output pipelines. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 6 raster output pipelines. The shading unit count is higher on the Intel side, but the ROP count is dramatically lower (6 vs. 40), which explains the pixel rate difference. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 11.29 GPixel/s, while the Intel part is 6.600 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells a different story: the Intel part achieves 52.80 GTexel/s, more than double the Quadro’s 22.57 GTexel/s. This is because the Intel part has more TMUs and a higher boost clock.

Memory is a fundamental split. The Quadro has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, with 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with a system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro’s dedicated memory is a clear advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The Intel part’s clocks are 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, while the Quadro’s memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), with no base or boost clock recorded for the core. The Intel part’s TDP is 15 W, versus the Quadro’s 152 W, making the Intel part an integrated IGP with a fraction of the power draw.

The Quadro is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. It uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and has display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Intel part is an IGP on a Ring Bus interface, with motherboard-dependent outputs and no power connectors. The Quadro supports OpenGL 4.6, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.4. The Intel part lists Vulkan 1.0 support, while the Quadro has none. Both support DirectX 12, but the Intel part has a higher feature level (11_1 vs. 11_0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556. The delta is 60% in favor of the Quadro. That is a large margin, and it means the Quadro delivers roughly 1.6 times the OpenCL performance of the Intel part. The Quadro’s nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (avg score 7222, delta 0.9%), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, delta 1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE (7171, delta 1.6%). The Quadro sits just above these parts, within a 1.6% range, meaning it is competitive with those discrete GPUs in OpenCL.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (avg score 6137, delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, delta 0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, delta 0.7%). The Intel part’s average score of 6117 is essentially tied with those parts, slightly below the AMD Radeon HD 8690M and slightly above the RTX A400. This tells us that the Intel part is not a high flyer in average terms; it is a mid-pack integrated GPU.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the defining metric. The Quadro’s 60% lead is not a small edge; it is a dominant one. In practical terms, any OpenCL application will run significantly faster on the Quadro. The Intel part’s higher Metal score (7764) and Vulkan score (6032) do not matter in this comparison because the Quadro has no recorded scores for those APIs. The database only shows one benchmark where both parts were tested, and the Quadro won it outright.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has an average benchmark score of 7289, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average of 6117. The Quadro is 19.2% higher in average terms.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro 5000 scores 7289 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 4556 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. That is a 60% lead for the Quadro.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it lists Vulkan 1.0 support. The Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan entry in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro has 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro has a pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has 6.600 GPixel/s. The Quadro is higher due to its 40 ROPs versus the Intel part’s 6 ROPs.

Q: What are the power draw figures?

A: The Quadro has a TDP of 152 W, and the Intel part has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel part is an integrated IGP with a much lower power requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Shading Units | 352 | 384 |

| TMUs | 44 | 48 |

| ROPs | 40 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.29 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.57 GTexel/s | 52.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.3 GFLOPS | 844.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 152 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | Motherboard Dependent |

| Memory Size | 2.5 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 320 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1100 MHz |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-22 | 2014-09-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the choice for OpenCL compute performance. Its 60% lead over the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 in the shared benchmark is the single most important metric in this comparison. The Quadro also has a higher average benchmark score (7289 vs. 6117) and a higher percentile ranking (40th vs. 35th). Its dedicated 2.5 GB GDDR5 memory with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a memory subsystem that the Intel part cannot match, since the Intel part relies on system shared memory.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has its own merits. It is a 14 nm integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, versus the Quadro’s 40 nm, 152 W dual-slot card. The Intel part has a higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s vs. 22.57 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (844.8 GFLOPS vs. 722.3 GFLOPS). It also supports Vulkan 1.0, which the Quadro does not. For a low-power, integrated solution that handles modern graphics APIs, the Intel part is the practical option.

But for raw compute in OpenCL, the Quadro dominates. Its nearest rivals in the database are all discrete GPUs (GeForce GTX 750, Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, GeForce GTX 560 SE), and it edges them all out. The Intel part’s rivals are a mix of small discrete and integrated parts, and it struggles to stay ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8690M. The verdict is straightforward: if the workload is OpenCL-heavy and power is not a constraint, the Quadro 5000 wins outright. If the workload is light, API-diverse, and power-constrained, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the sensible pick. The database shows the Quadro as the performance leader in the only direct test, and that is where the recommendation must rest.