Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs NVIDIA Tesla K10 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark result available for this comparison paints a clear, if narrow, picture: Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics edges out the NVIDIA Tesla K10 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Intel's DG1-based part scores 14,315 points against Tesla K10's 14,029 points, a delta of just 2% in favor of Intel. That is a statistically thin margin, but it is a win nonetheless, and it places both GPUs in a remarkably similar performance tier.

Intel's score puts it at the 56th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while Tesla K10 sits at the 55th percentile. The data suggests these are effectively peer-class performers in this workload, despite their wildly different architectures and release dates. Intel's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Vega 11, scores 14,352, which is 0.3% higher than the Iris Xe MAX; the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti trails at 14,277, just 0.3% behind Intel. Tesla K10's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 at 14,150, which is 0.9% faster, while the AMD Radeon RX 570X is 1.1% slower at 13,871.

The head-to-head delta of 2% is smaller than the gaps between each card and some of its own nearest rivals. For instance, Tesla K10 is 1.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon 660M, both of which score 13,821 and 13,812 respectively. Intel's 2% advantage over Tesla K10 is therefore real but not dominant; it is the kind of margin that could flip with driver updates or different test conditions.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315 points, while NVIDIA Tesla K10 scores 14,029 points. Intel wins by a 2% margin.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Intel's closest competitor is AMD Radeon Vega 11 at 14,352 points, which is 0.3% faster than Iris Xe MAX. Tesla K10's closest rival is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 at 14,150 points, which is 0.9% faster than the Tesla.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but Intel uses LPDDR4X on a 128-bit bus with 68.26 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP32 performance for each?

A: Intel Iris Xe MAX delivers 2.534 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while NVIDIA Tesla K10 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS. Intel is ahead by roughly 10.7% in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Which GPU has higher texture and pixel rates?

A: Intel leads in pixel rate at 39.60 GPixel/s versus 23.84 GPixel/s for Tesla K10. However, NVIDIA leads in texture rate at 95.36 GTexel/s versus 79.20 GTexel/s for Intel.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: Intel Iris Xe MAX has a TDP of 25 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. NVIDIA Tesla K10 has a TDP of 225 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is cavernous. Intel's DG1 chip is built on Generation 12.1 architecture, also known as Xe Graphics, and fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The die measures 95 mm². NVIDIA's Tesla K10, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The Tesla K10 die is substantially larger at 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

The shading resources differ significantly. Intel packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 24 raster output units. NVIDIA counters with 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is double the shaders and TMUs for NVIDIA, yet Intel still manages to win the FP32 race — evidence of clock efficiency. Intel's boost clock reaches 1650 MHz with a base of 300 MHz, while Tesla K10's clock data is not provided in the pack.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. Intel uses LPDDR4X at 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, yielding 68.26 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses GDDR5 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth. Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, and both have no display outputs, targeting compute rather than graphics output.

API support shows a generation gap. Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Intel's newer architecture supports a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, reflecting its later release.

# Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts beyond raw performance. The process node differs by two generations: Intel uses 10 nm, NVIDIA uses 28 nm. Die size is nearly three times larger on NVIDIA (294 mm² vs 95 mm²), and the transistor count for NVIDIA is 3,540 million, while Intel's is not listed.

Power draw is the most dramatic divergence. Intel's TDP is 25 W, while NVIDIA's is 225 W — a ninefold difference. The suggested PSU scales accordingly: 200 W for Intel versus 550 W for NVIDIA. NVIDIA requires dual power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin), while Intel has none listed. Slot width also differs: Intel is IGP (integrated), NVIDIA is dual-slot.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors NVIDIA at 160.0 GB/s versus 68.26 GB/s, despite both having 4 GB capacity. The bus width is 256-bit on NVIDIA versus 128-bit on Intel. Bus interface differs too: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16. NVIDIA's physical length is 272 mm (10.7 inches), while Intel's dimensions are not listed.

Release dates are eight years apart: Intel launched on 2020-10-30, NVIDIA on 2012-04-30. Both are end-of-life. Intel's successor is Alchemist, NVIDIA's is Tesla Maxwell. NVIDIA's predecessor is Tesla Fermi, Intel's is simply "Graphics." Tesla K10 has a launch MSRP of 5,099 USD; Intel's launch MSRP is not available.

# Where Each One Wins

Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a 2% margin. It also leads in FP32 compute at 2.534 TFLOPS versus 2.289 TFLOPS, and in pixel fill rate at 39.60 GPixel/s versus 23.84 GPixel/s. Its 25 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is newer than NVIDIA's PCIe 3.0 x16. It supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 11_0) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.175). For compute workloads that are not bandwidth-limited, Intel's higher FP32 throughput and newer API support give it an edge.

NVIDIA Tesla K10 wins on memory bandwidth by a wide margin: 160.0 GB/s versus 68.26 GB/s is a 134% advantage. It also has double the shading units (1,536 vs 768), double the TMUs (128 vs 48), and more ROPs (32 vs 24). Its texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s surpasses Intel's 79.20 GTexel/s. For workloads that are memory-bound or texture-heavy, the Tesla K10's superior resources and bandwidth should translate to better performance, even if the OpenCL benchmark does not capture that advantage. Its dual-slot form factor and 272 mm length indicate a discrete, high-power design built for sustained compute.

# The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced conclusion. If you are choosing based solely on the available OpenCL benchmark, Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the winner by 2%, and its lower power draw and newer architecture make it the more modern choice. The 25 W TDP versus 225 W is not just a spec sheet difference; it means the Intel part can operate in systems where a 550 W PSU and dual power connectors are not available.

However, the NVIDIA Tesla K10's massive bandwidth advantage and doubled shading resources suggest it would dominate in bandwidth-sensitive compute tasks, even though the single Geekbench test does not reflect that. The 160 GB/s bandwidth is more than double Intel's, and the 1,536 shaders are exactly double. For texture-heavy workloads, the 95.36 GTexel/s rate is 20% higher than Intel's.

The verdict splits by workload. For general OpenCL compute, power-constrained environments, or systems with modern PCIe 4.0 support, Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is the pick. For memory-intensive or shader-heavy workloads where raw bandwidth and shading resources matter more than power efficiency, NVIDIA Tesla K10 retains relevance despite its age. The 2% benchmark delta is too small to declare an overall winner; the choice hinges on which specification differences matter more for the intended use case.