Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and Intel UHD Graphics 710 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a legacy professional add-in card, the other a modern integrated processor. Benchmark data shows the Quadro K2000D leads in the sole shared test, but the Intel part offers a more current feature set and a significantly different power profile. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the system requires a discrete, professional-grade GPU or an efficient, space-saving integrated solution.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. If the workload is legacy professional 3D applications that leverage OpenCL acceleration, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the stronger performer. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3919 is 12.1% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710's 3496 score. This is a meaningful gap for compute tasks. The Quadro K2000D also carries a 23rd percentile ranking versus the Intel's 22nd, placing it marginally higher among all GPUs.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is not without merit. It delivers a competitive Vulkan score of 4088, a test the Quadro K2000D does not have a result for. This suggests better modern API support. Its 15 W TDP is drastically lower than the Quadro's 51 W, making it a far more efficient choice for basic desktop and media tasks. The Intel part is for builders who need a display output and light acceleration without installing a dedicated card. The Quadro is for those who need a proven, if older, discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM for professional applications. Strictly from the data, the Quadro wins on raw compute, while the Intel wins on efficiency and modern API compliance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Quadro K2000D is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². In contrast, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses the Alder Lake chip based on Intel's Generation 12.2 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel. The Intel chip's transistor count and die size are not listed.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro K2000D is a discrete card with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses System Shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all system-dependent, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The Quadro also features a 1000 MHz memory clock with 4 Gbps effective speed.

Compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Consequently, the Quadro's texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus the Intel's 10.40 GTexel/s. The Quadro also leads in FP32 throughput with 732.7 GFLOPS versus the Intel's 332.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part does have a listed FP16 rate of 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1), a capability the Quadro does not list.

The API support also differs. The Quadro K2000D 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. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro is a PCIe 2.0 x16 card, while the Intel is an IGP connected via Ring Bus. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and it has a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel part has no power connectors listed and no suggested PSU, as it draws power from the motherboard.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear win for the Quadro K2000D in OpenCL compute. Its score of 3919 beats the Intel's 3496 by 12.1%. This indicates the Quadro is better suited for GPU-accelerated professional workloads that use OpenCL, such as rendering, simulation, or video processing in older software. Its 64.00 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth is a major advantage over the Intel's system-shared memory, which will be slower and contend with the CPU for bandwidth.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 51 W, making it ideal for low-power builds, home theater PCs, or office machines. The Vulkan score of 4088, while not directly comparable to the Quadro's lack of a Vulkan result, shows the Intel part can handle modern graphics APIs. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is also newer than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0). The Intel part is the winner for basic desktop use, video playback, and light gaming that relies on newer APIs.

The Quadro K2000D also wins on the basis of its dedicated hardware. Having 2 GB of GDDR5 VRAM means textures and frame buffers are held in fast, dedicated memory. The Intel part's performance is entirely dependent on the system's RAM speed and allocation. For professionals using legacy CAD or DCC applications, the Quadro's stability and certified driver path are implicit advantages, though not directly listed in the benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has an average benchmark score of 3919, which is higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710's average score of 3792.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2000D in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2000D scored 3919, which is 12.1% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710's 3496.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 support a newer version of DirectX?

A: Yes, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a TDP of 15 W, which is significantly lower than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 51 W.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000D have more shading units?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, compared to the Intel UHD Graphics 710's 128 shading units.

Q: Which GPU has a Vulkan benchmark score?

A: Only the Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4088. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D does not have a listed Vulkan benchmark result.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is the clear winner. It scored 3919 against the Intel UHD Graphics 710's 3496, a delta of 12.1%. This is a substantial margin that reflects the Quadro's dedicated memory and higher compute throughput. The Quadro's 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are the hardware reasons for this victory.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 does have its own benchmark win, though it is not a head-to-head comparison. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4088 is a strong result, indicating that the architecture handles modern low-level APIs efficiently. This score even exceeds its own OpenCL score of 3496 by a significant margin. The Quadro K2000D has no Vulkan score in the data, so it is impossible to gauge its performance in that API. However, the presence of a Vulkan score for the Intel part and its higher DirectX 12 feature level (12_1 vs 11_0) suggest it is better prepared for modern software.

The data shows one win for the Quadro and zero wins for the Intel in direct head-to-head tests. Yet, the Intel part is not without merit. Its pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s is higher than the Quadro's 7.632 GPixel/s, suggesting it can fill pixels faster, which is relevant for 2D desktop composition. The Intel part's FP16 capability of 665.6 GFLOPS also offers a compute advantage in workloads that support reduced precision. The Quadro counters with a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, nearly three times the Intel's 10.40 GTexel/s, making it far superior for texture-heavy 3D scenes.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses a 28 nm process, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses a 10 nm process. The Quadro has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die; the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size. The Quadro's clock memory is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the Intel has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, whereas the Intel uses System Shared memory.

The compute configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro's pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s. The Intel's pixel rate is 10.40 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 10.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 732.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 332.8 GFLOPS for the Intel. The Intel has an FP16 rate of 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1); the Quadro has none listed.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro has a TDP of 51 W, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Intel has a TDP of 15 W, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The Quadro uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the Intel uses a Ring Bus. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, and "Motherboard Dependent" for the Intel. The Quadro's dimensions are 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height; the Intel has no listed dimensions. The Quadro was released on 2013-02-28, and the Intel on 2022-01-03. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the Intel has none.