Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 represent two very different approaches to graphics processing, separated by nearly three years of technology evolution. The data positions the Quadro P2000 as the clear performance leader, but the Iris Pro's integrated nature and efficiency metrics tell a distinct story. Benchmark results indicate a decisive victory for the discrete NVIDIA solution, yet the comparison reveals more than just a simple performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is stark and unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 against the Iris Pro's 4,556. That is a delta of -77.4% for the Intel part, meaning the Quadro delivers roughly four and a half times the compute performance in this workload. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational chasm. The OpenCL result reflects raw shader throughput, and the Quadro's 1,024 shading units versus the Iris Pro's 384 explain a large portion of this gap. The Quadro also benefits from a dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 memory pool, whereas the Iris Pro relies on system shared memory with bandwidth that is simply described as "System Dependent."

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the margin narrows slightly. The Quadro P2000 posts 23,566, while the Iris Pro manages 6,032, a delta of -74.4%. Vulkan's lower overhead can help integrated parts, but here the sheer hardware advantage of the Pascal-based Quadro overwhelms any API-level efficiency gains. The 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance on the Quadro dwarfs the Iris Pro's 844.8 GFLOPS, a 3.6x raw compute advantage that shows up directly in these API-agnostic benchmarks.

The overall win count is 2-0 in favor of the Quadro P2000 across these two tests. Notably, there are no direct head-to-head gaming or DirectX results in the data, but the Passmark suite included for the Quadro offers context. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,956, with DirectX 9 at 124, DirectX 10 at 34, DirectX 11 at 47, and DirectX 12 at 28. These numbers are not directly comparable to the Iris Pro, but they show a GPU that handles legacy APIs far better than modern ones, which is typical for a workstation-oriented card from this era. The Iris Pro's average benchmark score across its three tests is 6,117, while the Quadro's is 6,049, placing them within 1.1% of each other in aggregate. This is a curious inversion: the aggregate scores are nearly identical, yet the head-to-head tests show a massive spread. The explanation lies in the different test mixes. The Iris Pro's Geekbench scores (7,764 Metal, 4,556 OpenCL, 6,032 Vulkan) pull its average up, while the Quadro's Passmark tests, particularly the low DirectX scores, drag its average down.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Quadro P2000 win the head-to-head tests by such a large margin?

A: The most direct explanation is hardware scale. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, compared to the Iris Pro's 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The Quadro also runs at a 1,076 MHz base clock boosting to 1,480 MHz, versus the Iris Pro's 300 MHz base and 1,100 MHz boost. Combined with 140.2 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth, the Quadro simply has more resources to throw at compute workloads.

Q: Is the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 competitive in any benchmark?

A: In aggregate, yes. Its average benchmark score is 6,117, which is 1.1% higher than the Quadro's 6,049. This is driven by its strong Geekbench Metal score of 7,764, a test the Quadro does not appear to have taken. The Iris Pro also holds its own in the nearest rival comparisons, sitting within 0.7% of the Geekbench MX230 and 0.6% of the RTX A400.

Q: What does the "deltaPct" of -77.4% in OpenCL actually mean for real-world use?

A: It means the Quadro P2000 completes OpenCL compute tasks in roughly a quarter of the time it takes the Iris Pro. For workloads like video encoding, scientific simulation, or any GPU-accelerated compute, the Quadro's advantage is transformative. The 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 rate versus 844.8 GFLOPS is the underlying spec driving this.

Q: How do their DirectX capabilities compare?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Quadro's Passmark DirectX scores are modest (DirectX 11 at 47, DirectX 12 at 28), suggesting it was not optimized for gaming, but its API support is newer. The Iris Pro's 11_1 feature level predates the Quadro's 12_1.

Q: Are these two GPUs from the same era?

A: No. The Iris Pro was released on September 4, 2014, while the Quadro P2000 came later on February 5, 2017. This explains the architectural gap: the Iris Pro uses Intel's 14 nm Broadwell process, while the Quadro uses TSMC's 16 nm Pascal architecture. The Quadro's successor is noted as Quadro Volta, while the Iris Pro has no listed successor.

Q: Which GPU has better driver and API longevity?

A: The Quadro P2000 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, while the Iris Pro is limited to OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. For professional applications that rely on OpenGL, the Quadro's newer driver stack is a significant advantage. The Iris Pro's Vulkan 1.0 support is minimal by modern standards.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is fundamental. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Broadwell GT3e, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture on a 14 nm process node fabricated by Intel itself. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a "Ring Bus" interface, meaning it shares the system's memory and has no dedicated VRAM. Its memory bus width and type are both listed as "System Shared," with bandwidth that is "System Dependent." This is a design that prioritizes low power and compactness over raw throughput. The 384 shading units and just 6 ROPs indicate a part designed for basic display output and light compute, not heavy lifting.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000, in contrast, is a discrete card based on the GP106 chip using the Pascal architecture. It is fabricated on a 16 nm process by TSMC, using 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. This gives it a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². Pascal was a major architectural leap over Intel's Generation 8.0, particularly in terms of memory management and compute efficiency. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs, and it connects via PCIe 3.0 x16. Its memory subsystem is a dedicated 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP16 performance is listed as 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), indicating a heavily reduced half-precision rate, which is typical for workstation cards that prioritize FP32 precision. The Iris Pro has no listed FP16 capability.

The pixel and texture rates reinforce the gap. The Quadro produces 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s, versus the Iris Pro's 6.600 GPixel/s and 52.80 GTexel/s. The ROP count difference (40 vs 6) is the main driver of the pixel rate gap, while the TMU count (64 vs 48) and clock speed differences drive the texture rate. The Quadro's TDP is 75 W, requiring a suggested 250 W PSU, while the Iris Pro consumes only 15 W as an IGP. This efficiency difference is the Iris Pro's key architectural advantage.

Specification Differences

The specification tables diverge on nearly every measurable field. The process node differs: 14 nm for Intel versus 16 nm for TSMC. The Quadro has a defined transistor count of 4,400 million and a die size of 200 mm², while the Iris Pro lists neither. Clock speeds are vastly different: the Iris Pro runs at 300 MHz base and 1,100 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at 1,076 MHz base and 1,480 MHz boost. Memory is the most significant split: the Iris Pro uses system shared memory with dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units are 384 versus 1,024, TMUs are 48 versus 64, and ROPs are 6 versus 40. The FP32 compute rate is 844.8 GFLOPS against 3.031 TFLOPS. The Quadro has a 196 mm length (7.7 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches), while the Iris Pro has no physical dimensions since it is an IGP. Display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent" for the Iris Pro, while the Quadro provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface is "Ring Bus" for Intel versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. The Quadro is single-slot with no power connectors; the Iris Pro is an IGP with no slot width. TDP is 15 W versus 75 W. API support: DirectX 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.4 vs 4.6, Vulkan 1.0 vs 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every compute-heavy scenario. The OpenCL and Vulkan head-to-head results are decisive, with the Quadro leading by 74-77%. Any workload that uses these APIs for rendering, simulation, or data processing will see a massive improvement with the Quadro. Its 140.2 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth and 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance make it suitable for professional 3D modeling, CAD, and scientific compute. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups, and the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface ensures data transfers are not bottlenecked. The Quadro's OpenGL 4.6 support is critical for legacy professional applications.

The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP means it requires no additional power beyond the motherboard, no cooling solution beyond what the CPU already has, and no physical slot. It is a zero-cost addition to any Broadwell system. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7,764 is its standout result, suggesting it handles Apple's Metal API well, which could make it viable for macOS-based light compute tasks. Its aggregate benchmark average is 1.1% higher than the Quadro's, despite losing the head-to-head tests, because it does not have to carry the weight of low DirectX scores. For basic display output, video playback, and light productivity, the Iris Pro is more than adequate, and its "System Shared" memory means it can flexibly use whatever RAM is available.

The Verdict

The data does not support any ambiguity in raw performance: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior GPU by a wide margin. The head-to-head deltas of -77.4% and -74.4% in OpenCL and Vulkan are conclusive. For any user who needs compute performance, dedicated memory, or modern API support, the Quadro P2000 is the only choice between these two. Its 1,024 shading units, 40 ROPs, and 3.031 TFLOPS deliver workstation-class capability that the Iris Pro cannot approach. The Quadro's 5 GB GDDR5 memory with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth eliminates the system memory bottleneck that cripples the Iris Pro's shared memory design.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the right choice only for a very specific use case: an ultra-low-power integrated solution where adding a discrete card is impossible or undesirable. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor mean it fits in thin-and-light laptops or low-power desktops without any modification. Its 6,117 average benchmark score is respectable for an integrated part from 2014, and its Metal score of 7,764 suggests it handles Apple's API well. But this is a legacy product, end-of-life, with Vulkan 1.0 and OpenGL 4.4 support that is outdated. The Quadro P2000, also end-of-life, offers a far more future-proof feature set with Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6.

The verdict is straightforward. Pick the Quadro P2000 for any task that involves actual graphics processing, compute acceleration, or professional applications. Pick the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 only if you are constrained to an integrated solution and your workload is limited to basic display output and light compute. The aggregate benchmark scores are within 1.1%, but this is misleading; the head-to-head tests reveal the true hierarchy. The Quadro P2000 wins decisively where it matters, and the Iris Pro wins only where it is forced to compete by being the only option available.