GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 and Intel UHD Graphics 710 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: one is a dedicated professional GPU from 2013, the other a modern integrated processor graphics unit. Benchmark data shows the Quadro K2000 maintains a clear performance lead in every shared test, though the margin varies significantly by workload. Its average benchmark score of 3964 places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3792 on average, landing in the 22nd percentile. The gap is real but not overwhelming, and the architectural differences explain why each part behaves so differently.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Quadro K2000 wins both head-to-head comparisons, but the size of the victory tells the story. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA card scores 4071 against the Intel’s 3496, a decisive 16.4% advantage. This is the Quadro’s strongest showing, reflecting its dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher raw compute throughput. The OpenCL workload scales well with the Quadro’s 384 shading units and 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, whereas the Intel part’s system-shared memory becomes a bottleneck. A 16.4% lead is substantial in real-world terms, especially for compute-heavy tasks that rely on sustained memory access.

The Vulkan test is much closer. The Quadro K2000 scores 4191, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 reaches 4088, a slim 2.5% margin. Vulkan’s lower-level API reduces driver overhead, allowing the Intel iGPU to leverage its newer architecture more efficiently. The Intel part’s 10 nm process and Generation 12.2 design help it close the gap, but it still cannot overtake the dedicated GPU. This result suggests that for modern graphics APIs, the performance difference between these two aging parts is nearly negligible, at least in this specific benchmark.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro K2000 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 and 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 by 0.8% and the GeForce MX110 by 1.1%. The Intel part leads the GeForce GT 635M by 1.4% and the Quadro 3000M by 2%. These nearest-rival comparisons confirm that both GPUs are firmly in entry-level territory, but the Quadro holds a slight edge in aggregate performance. The 2.5% Vulkan margin is within the noise of typical benchmark variance, meaning that for Vulkan-specific workloads, users would likely perceive no practical difference between the two.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is the faster GPU overall, winning both head-to-head tests and posting a higher average benchmark score. For anyone choosing between these two for compute or graphics tasks, the Quadro is the safer pick, particularly in OpenCL-heavy applications where its 16.4% lead provides measurable benefit. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, 128-bit bus, and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth give it a structural advantage over the Intel’s system-shared memory, which depends entirely on the host system’s RAM.

However, the verdict is not one-sided. The Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 2.5% Vulkan deficit is small enough to be irrelevant in gaming or light rendering scenarios, and its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Quadro’s 51 W. For a system builder prioritizing power efficiency or needing an iGPU that requires no separate card, the Intel part is the pragmatic choice. The Quadro K2000 demands a 250 W suggested PSU and a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and no power connectors. The Quadro also carries a 599 USD launch MSRP, a price point that reflects its professional workstation heritage, whereas the Intel part has no standalone cost.

For professional workloads like CAD, medical imaging, or scientific visualization that rely on OpenCL, the Quadro K2000 is the clear winner. For basic desktop output, video playback, or Vulkan-based workloads on a low-power system, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is sufficient, and its newer DirectX 12 (12_1) support and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility make it more future-proof for software that leverages modern APIs. The Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175 are older, which could limit compatibility with the latest titles.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process from TSMC, packing 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 10.8M per mm², a figure that was competitive in 2013 but is now dated. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses Generation 12.2 architecture on Intel’s 10 nm process, though its transistor count and die size are not disclosed in the available data. The process node advantage is clear: 10 nm versus 28 nm means Intel can fit more functionality per watt, even if the iGPU has far fewer resources.

The compute configuration differs sharply. The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has only 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having one-third the shading units, the Intel part achieves a higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 7.632 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The Intel base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1300 MHz, while the Quadro’s base and boost clocks are not listed. The texture rate tells a different story: the Quadro’s 30.53 GTexel/s is nearly three times the Intel’s 10.40 GTexel/s, reflecting its superior TMU count and dedicated memory bandwidth.

Memory architecture is the biggest differentiator. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses system-shared memory, making its bandwidth “System Dependent” and its bus width “System Shared.” This is a structural disadvantage for the Intel part in memory-intensive workloads, despite its modern architecture. The Quadro also supports fp32 at 732.7 GFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 332.8 GFLOPS fp32 and 665.6 GFLOPS fp16 (2:1). The Quadro has no fp16 capability, making it less suited for AI or compute tasks that leverage half-precision.

Specification Differences

The key specification gaps are straightforward. Process node: 28 nm (NVIDIA) versus 10 nm (Intel). Memory: 2 GB GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Shading units: 384 versus 128. TMUs: 32 versus 8. ROPs: 16 versus 8. Pixel rate: 7.632 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 30.53 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s. FP32: 732.7 GFLOPS versus 332.8 GFLOPS. FP16: none versus 665.6 GFLOPS.

TDP is a major divergence: the Quadro draws 51 W, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is rated at just 15 W. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Intel part is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro versus Ring Bus for the Intel. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 on the Quadro, while the Intel part’s outputs are “Motherboard Dependent.” The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the Intel part has none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071 versus the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496, a 16.4% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How close is the Vulkan performance between the two?

A: The Quadro K2000 scores 4191 and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 4088, a margin of just 2.5% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the memory setup for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is rated at 51 W TDP.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Quadro K2000 has an average benchmark score of 3964, placing it in the 24th percentile. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 averages 3792, placing it in the 22nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 16.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL reflects the benefit of dedicated GDDR5 memory, 384 shading units, and 732.7 GFLOPS of fp32 throughput. This makes it the better choice for professional applications that offload parallel math to the GPU, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Quadro also wins the Vulkan test, but by a narrow 2.5%, so its advantage there is marginal. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 30.53 GTexel/s texture rate give it a clear edge in texture-heavy 3D workloads.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins on power efficiency and API modernity. Its 15 W TDP is less than a third of the Quadro’s 51 W, making it ideal for low-power builds or laptops. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, both newer than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, which means better compatibility with recent games and software. Its higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s and fp16 capability (665.6 GFLOPS) make it more suitable for lightweight graphics tasks that benefit from half-precision math. For basic desktop use, video playback, or Vulkan-based gaming at low settings, the Intel part is sufficient and far cheaper to integrate into a system.