GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and Intel UHD Graphics 710 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: a legacy discrete workstation card from 2011 versus a modern integrated graphics processor from 2022. The data shows a close overall race, with the Quadro 2000D holding a 12.4% lead in the sole shared OpenCL benchmark, yet the Intel part counters with a superior feature set and significantly lower power draw. This comparison highlights how architectural age and intended use-case create distinct advantages that raw benchmark scores do not fully capture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has an average benchmark score of 3930, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3792 on average, placing the Intel part slightly behind.

Q: How do their overall performance percentiles compare?

A: The Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the UHD Graphics 710 is at the 22nd percentile, making both parts essentially equivalent in overall standing relative to the broader GPU population.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in a single test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 2000D scored 3930 versus the Intel’s 3496, resulting in a 12.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 support any APIs that the Quadro 2000D does not?

A: Yes, the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Quadro 2000D has no Vulkan support and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which GPU has a dedicated memory bus?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses a 128-bit GDDR5 interface with 1024 MB of dedicated memory and 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 relies entirely on system shared memory.

Q: What is the difference in their launch dates?

A: The Quadro 2000D was released on October 4, 2011, while the UHD Graphics 710 came much later, on January 3, 2022.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is stark. The Quadro 2000D is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture using a GF106 chip fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This older design packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². In contrast, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is based on the Alder Lake chip using Intel’s Generation 12.2 architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size, reflecting its integrated nature.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro 2000D contains 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has fewer of each: 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This configuration gives the NVIDIA card a higher texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s compared to the Intel’s 10.40 GTexel/s, but the Intel part achieves a higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 5.000 GPixel/s, due to more efficient pixel processing per ROP.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Quadro 2000D has no listed base or boost clock, with memory running at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective). The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, with system-shared memory clocked dynamically. FP32 throughput favors the NVIDIA card at 480.0 GFLOPS versus the Intel’s 332.8 GFLOPS, but the Intel part supports FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which the Quadro does not offer at all.

API support heavily favors the Intel part. The UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000D only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support whatsoever. This makes the Intel GPU far more future-proof for modern software titles that rely on newer API features.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D wins in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 480.0 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 41.60 GB/s dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth give it a clear edge in workloads that are sensitive to memory latency and sustained data throughput. The 12.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL confirms this advantage in compute-heavy tasks. With 192 shading units and 32 TMUs, the Quadro is better suited for professional 3D rendering and CAD-style workloads that leverage high texture fill rates and parallel floating-point math.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins in efficiency, modern API support, and integration. Its 15 W TDP is drastically lower than the Quadro’s 62 W, and it requires no power connectors or dedicated cooler, functioning as an IGP on the Ring Bus. The support for Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) makes it compatible with contemporary games and applications that may not run correctly on the older Fermi architecture. Its higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s suggests it handles modern display composition and lighter 2D workloads more effectively, despite lower overall compute. The system-shared memory model also eliminates the need for a separate VRAM allocation, which can be beneficial in low-power or compact systems.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process is a key divider: the Quadro 2000D uses a 40 nm node, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses a 10 nm node. The NVIDIA chip has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die; the Intel part has no published transistor or die size. Memory configurations are completely different: the Quadro has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Compute unit counts favor the Quadro in shading units (192 vs 128), TMUs (32 vs 8), and ROPs (16 vs 8). Clock speeds favor the Intel part with a 1300 MHz boost, while the Quadro only lists a memory clock of 650 MHz. Pixel rate favors Intel at 10.40 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors NVIDIA at 20.00 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s. FP32 output is higher on the Quadro (480.0 GFLOPS vs 332.8 GFLOPS), but only the Intel part lists FP16 capability (665.6 GFLOPS). TDP is a major difference: 62 W for the Quadro versus 15 W for the Intel.

Form factor and connectivity diverge as well. The Quadro is a single-slot, 178 mm (7 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall card requiring a 250 W PSU and featuring 2x DVI outputs. The Intel part is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs and no power connector or PSU recommendation. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the Intel uses a Ring Bus. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the Intel part has no listed launch price.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930 against the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496. This represents a 12.4% performance delta in favor of the NVIDIA card, making it the clear winner in this compute-oriented test. The margin is substantial enough to be meaningful in real-world OpenCL workloads, such as physics simulations or image processing, where the Quadro’s higher FP32 throughput and dedicated memory bandwidth provide tangible benefits.

However, the benchmark picture is incomplete without context. The Quadro 2000D’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D (scoring 3919, a 0.3% difference), the GeForce GT 745M (3953, -0.6%), the Radeon R5 M420 (3956, -0.7%), and the GeForce 830M (3957, -0.7%). This cluster shows that the Quadro 2000D sits at the lower-middle end of the performance spectrum, with its nearest competitors being low-end mobile and workstation parts from roughly the same era.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710’s nearest rivals paint a slightly different picture. The GeForce GTX 650 scores 3823 (-0.8% relative to Intel), the GeForce MX110 scores 3834 (-1.1%), the GeForce GT 635M scores 3740 (1.4%), and the Quadro 3000M scores 3718 (2%). This places the Intel IGP slightly above older mid-range discrete cards, which is impressive given its integrated nature and 15 W power envelope. The 2% advantage over the Quadro 3000M is notable, as that is a professional mobile workstation GPU.

The single head-to-head result gives the Quadro 2000D one win and the Intel part zero wins. Yet the Intel’s Vulkan score of 4088 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which has no comparable Quadro result, demonstrates that the Intel part excels in modern graphics API environments where the NVIDIA card cannot even participate. The absence of a Vulkan score for the Quadro 2000D is itself a significant data point: it means the Fermi architecture lacks the capability to run this benchmark entirely, limiting its utility in current software stacks.

In summary, the benchmark data shows the Quadro 2000D as the stronger compute performer in legacy OpenCL scenarios, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 offers broader API compatibility and far greater efficiency. The 12.4% OpenCL delta is the defining numerical gap, but the architectural and specification differences suggest that the Intel part is the more versatile choice for modern, power-constrained systems, despite losing the one direct benchmark comparison.