GPU Comparison
Intel UHD Graphics 610
Quadro P1000
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel UHD Graphics 610 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 has an average benchmark score of 3163, compared to the Intel UHD Graphics 610's 2752. This places the Quadro P1000 at the 20th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 610 sits at the 18th percentile.
Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute workloads?
A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P1000 scores 13584 versus the Intel UHD Graphics 610's 2692. That is a 404.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card, the larger of the two head-to-head deltas.
Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 610 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?
A: No. The head-to-head data shows two tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the Quadro P1000 and 0 for the Intel UHD Graphics 610.
Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two?
A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 has 640 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics 610 has 96. This difference in execution resources contributes directly to the large performance gaps seen in compute and graphics benchmarks.
Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?
A: The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 610 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent", meaning it has no dedicated video memory of its own.
Q: What are the power requirements for each?
A: The Quadro P1000 has a 47 W TDP and lists a suggested power supply of 200 W. The Intel UHD Graphics 610 has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), requiring no separate power connectors.
Where Each One Wins
The data presents an unambiguous split: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins in every measurable category. But the structure of those wins matters for real-world use.
In compute-heavy workloads, the Quadro P1000 is in a different class. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 13584 is more than five times that of the Intel UHD Graphics 610. This makes the NVIDIA card the clear choice for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any workflow that offloads parallel math to the GPU. The Intel part's 201.6 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput is a fraction of the Quadro's 1.894 TFLOPS, and that gap shows up directly in the benchmark numbers.
In graphics and API-specific workloads, the Quadro P1000 again dominates. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 7739 is 175.3% ahead of the Intel's 2811. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part tops out at Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, so API feature parity exists at the top level, but the actual performance headroom is vastly different.
The Intel UHD Graphics 610's only advantage is in power draw and integration. At 15 W TDP with no dedicated memory, it is designed for basic desktop tasks where a discrete GPU is unnecessary. Its 2.100 GPixel/s pixel rate and 12.60 GTexel/s texture rate are sufficient for 2D desktop composition and light video playback, but they are roughly 22x and 4.7x lower than the Quadro P1000's respective rates.
The verdict is simple: the Quadro P1000 wins on raw performance, memory bandwidth, and feature breadth. The Intel UHD Graphics 610 wins only on power efficiency and the convenience of being built into the processor.
Architecture Differences
The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages entirely. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The Intel UHD Graphics 610 uses the Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the Comet Lake GT1 chip, on Intel's 14 nm+++ process.
Transistor counts tell a story of scale. The Quadro P1000 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The Intel part lists no transistor count or die size in the data, but its 96 shading units against the Quadro's 640 suggests a far smaller implementation.
Memory architecture is a fundamental divider. The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 610 uses system shared memory, the size, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the Intel GPU competes with the CPU for memory access, which is a severe bottleneck in memory-intensive workloads.
Compute capabilities differ in ratio as well. The Quadro P1000 has an FP16 to FP32 ratio of 1:64, meaning its FP16 throughput (29.60 GFLOPS) is far lower than its FP32 throughput (1.894 TFLOPS). The Intel part has a 2:1 ratio, with FP16 at 403.2 GFLOPS versus FP32 at 201.6 GFLOPS. This is an unusual inversion, the Intel integrated GPU is relatively better at FP16, though its absolute numbers are still far below the Quadro's FP32 output.
The feature sets diverge in API support. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro P1000 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro also has 32 ROPs versus the Intel's 2 ROPs, and 40 texture mapping units versus 12. These hardware resources directly impact pixel and texture throughput rates.
Specification Differences
The specification sheets reveal the scale of the divide between these two products.
| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | Intel UHD Graphics 610 |
|---|---|---|
| Process node | 14 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Transistors | 3,300 million | Not listed |
| Die size | 132 mm² | Not listed |
| Base clock | 1266 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock | 1480 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Memory size | 4 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | System Dependent |
| Shading units | 640 | 96 |
| TMUs | 40 | 12 |
| ROPs | 32 | 2 |
| FP32 throughput | 1.894 TFLOPS | 201.6 GFLOPS |
| FP16 throughput | 29.60 GFLOPS | 403.2 GFLOPS |
| Pixel rate | 47.36 GPixel/s | 2.100 GPixel/s |
| Texture rate | 59.20 GTexel/s | 12.60 GTexel/s |
| TDP | 47 W | 15 W |
| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
| Display outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Motherboard Dependent |
| Vulkan version | 1.4 | 1.3 |
The clock speed differences are stark. The Quadro P1000's base clock of 1266 MHz is over 3.6 times the Intel's 350 MHz base. Even the Intel's boost clock of 1050 MHz is below the Quadro's base clock.
The shading unit count is the single most consequential difference: 640 versus 96. The Quadro P1000 has 6.67 times as many shading units, and when combined with the higher clocks, this produces the massive FP32 gap.
Memory bandwidth is another chasm. The Quadro P1000's 80.19 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth is fixed and reliable. The Intel part's bandwidth is entirely dependent on system memory configuration, which is a variable that the data cannot quantify.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head comparison is brief but decisive. Two tests were run, and the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 won both.
The Geekbench OpenCL test is the most lopsided. The Quadro P1000 scores 13584 against the Intel UHD Graphics 610's 2692. That is a 404.6% delta, a performance advantage of roughly five times. This test exercises general-purpose compute on the GPU, and the results align perfectly with the shading unit and memory bandwidth differences. The Quadro's 640 shading units, 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, and 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput simply overwhelm the Intel part's 96 shading units and system-shared memory.
The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a smaller but still substantial gap. The Quadro P1000 scores 7739 versus the Intel's 2811, a 175.3% difference. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API, and the Quadro's advantage here is less extreme than in OpenCL, but still decisive. The Quadro's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the Intel's 1.3 may also contribute to better optimization in this workload.
Context from the nearest rivals reinforces these numbers. The Quadro P1000's average score of 3163 sits within 3.8% of the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287) and within 2.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER (3075). The Intel UHD Graphics 610's average of 2752 is within 2.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 SUPER (2690) and within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon 550 (2801). This suggests the Intel part is competing in a much lower performance tier, despite the odd company it keeps in the rival list.
The Verdict
The data leads to an unambiguous conclusion. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the superior GPU in every benchmark recorded, with wins in both head-to-head tests and a 404.6% advantage in OpenCL compute.
For users who need discrete GPU performance, accelerated rendering, compute workloads, or any application that benefits from dedicated memory and high shading unit counts, the Quadro P1000 is the only choice between these two. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, and 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput provide a baseline that the Intel UHD Graphics 610 cannot approach. The Quadro's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs give it the hardware resources needed for serious graphics work.
The Intel UHD Graphics 610 serves a different purpose. As a 15 W integrated processor with system-shared memory, it is built for basic desktop functionality. Its 201.6 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 2.100 GPixel/s pixel rate are adequate for 2D workloads and light media playback, but the benchmark data shows it is not a competitor to the Quadro in any GPU-intensive task.
The percentile rankings confirm this. The Quadro P1000 sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 18th. Those are both low overall percentiles, but the gap between them represents a meaningful difference in capability. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 3163 is 14.9% higher than the Intel's 2752.
Pick the Quadro P1000 if the workload demands dedicated graphics performance. Pick the Intel UHD Graphics 610 if the system requires an integrated solution with minimal power draw and no discrete card. The data does not support any other conclusion.