Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 710 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M are both end-of-life mobile-class graphics solutions, but they come from vastly different eras and design philosophies. The Intel part is a modern integrated GPU built on a 10 nm process for Alder Lake, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is a dedicated 40 nm Fermi-based mobile workstation chip from 2011. The benchmark data shows a narrow but clear edge for the Intel solution, yet the story is more nuanced than a single score suggests, especially when considering the Quadro’s dedicated memory and legacy strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3,496 points against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M’s 3,434 points. That is a delta of 1.8% in favor of Intel, making the gap narrow enough that real-world variance could flip the result in certain workloads. The Intel part wins the head-to-head count 1–0, but the margin is hardly decisive.

Placing both GPUs in their broader competitive context clarifies what these scores mean. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 holds an average benchmark score of 3,792 across all tests, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (average score 3,823, delta -0.8%) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (average score 3,834, delta -1.1%). Meanwhile, the Quadro 2000M’s average score is just 3,434, putting it in the 21st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (average score 3,431, delta 0.1%) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (average score 3,389, delta 1.3%). In essence, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 sits slightly ahead of a cluster of older discrete GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M trails just behind that same cluster.

Notably, the Intel part’s Vulkan score of 4,088 is significantly higher than its OpenCL score of 3,496, suggesting that its modern architecture (Generation 12.2) handles newer APIs more efficiently. The Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan score at all, which is consistent with its pre-Vulkan Fermi design. This divergence hints that the Intel chip’s advantage would grow in applications leveraging Vulkan, even though no direct Vulkan comparison exists in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins on raw compute in the measured OpenCL test, but its victories extend beyond that single metric. Its pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s is more than double the Quadro 2000M’s 4.400 GPixel/s, meaning the Intel part can fill framebuffers much faster—an advantage in simple 2D rendering or lightweight 3D scenes. Its texture rate of 10.40 GTexel/s, however, is lower than the Quadro’s 17.60 GTexel/s, indicating the NVIDIA part excels at texture-heavy workloads where more TMUs (32 vs. 8) come into play.

The Quadro 2000M wins on memory architecture. It has a dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 relies on system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." In scenarios where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck—such as large texture streaming or certain compute kernels—the Quadro’s fixed 28.80 GB/s provides predictable performance, whereas the Intel part’s throughput varies with system RAM configuration. The Quadro also has more shading units (192 vs. 128) and more ROPs (16 vs. 8), which helps in specific fill-rate and shader-bound tasks, even if its overall FP32 throughput (422.4 GFLOPS) exceeds Intel’s 332.8 GFLOPS.

For modern API support, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the clear winner: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support. This makes the Intel part far more compatible with contemporary games and compute frameworks that rely on Vulkan or newer DirectX features.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent opposite ends of the integrated-vs-discrete spectrum and a decade of silicon evolution. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses the Alder Lake chip on Intel’s 10 nm process, built on the Generation 12.2 architecture—the same family as Intel’s Xe graphics. It operates with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, and its memory interface is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM. The GPU has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 10.40 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 332.8 GFLOPS, with FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The TDP is just 15 W, and it connects via a Ring Bus interface, typical for integrated parts.

In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is built on the GF106 chip using TSMC’s 40 nm process, with the Fermi architecture. It has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9M / mm²—a figure that underscores how far process technology has advanced since 2011. The Quadro has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.60 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output is 422.4 GFLOPS, slightly higher than Intel’s, but it lacks any FP16 capability. Memory is 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The TDP is 55 W, and it uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface.

The process node difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt gap: Intel’s 10 nm versus NVIDIA’s 40 nm means the Intel part delivers comparable compute in a fraction of the power envelope (15 W vs. 55 W). The Quadro’s dedicated memory is its main structural advantage, but it comes at the cost of far greater power consumption and a larger physical footprint. The Intel part’s memory is system-shared, which is flexible but dependent on the host system’s RAM speed and capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has an average benchmark score of 3,792, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3,434. Intel also holds a higher percentile rank at 22nd versus the Quadro’s 21st percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Intel UHD Graphics 710 in the direct comparison?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3,496 against the Quadro 2000M’s 3,434, a delta of 1.8% in favor of Intel.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000M have any advantage in memory?

A: Yes. The Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports Vulkan, with version 1.4. The Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses a 40 nm process at TSMC.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the better choice for anyone needing modern API support, lower power consumption, and competitive compute performance. It wins the only direct benchmark, offers Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), and delivers a higher average score (3,792 vs. 3,434) while using just 15 W compared to the Quadro’s 55 W. Its pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s is more than double the Quadro’s, making it superior for resolution-scaling and framebuffer operations.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, however, still has a niche. Its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, predictable performance that does not depend on system RAM. Its higher texture rate (17.60 GTexel/s) and greater number of TMUs (32 vs. 8) give it an edge in texture-bound applications, and its FP32 throughput of 422.4 GFLOPS exceeds Intel’s 332.8 GFLOPS. For legacy software that predates Vulkan and relies on older OpenGL or DirectX paths, the Quadro’s Fermi architecture may offer better compatibility, though its lack of Vulkan and limited DirectX 12 (11_0) support makes it a poor fit for modern workloads.

Ultimately, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the more future-proof and efficient part, with a higher benchmark score and broader API coverage. The Quadro 2000M is a relic that retains value only in very specific, memory-bandwidth-sensitive or texture-heavy legacy scenarios. For general use, modern gaming, or compute tasks leveraging Vulkan, the Intel solution is clearly ahead. For a dedicated workstation task that demands fixed memory bandwidth and can tolerate higher power draw, the Quadro 2000M still has a narrow lane—but the data shows that lane is closing fast.