Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two parts, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points against 3496 points for the Intel UHD Graphics 710. That is a 21.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial gap in compute workloads. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 does have a separate Vulkan score of 4088, but there is no corresponding Vulkan result for the Quadro K3000M in the database, so no direct comparison can be made on that API.

The Quadro K3000M’s OpenCL score places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon Vega 3 averages 4268 (0.6% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M averages 4282 (1% higher), and the AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295 (1.3% higher). On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti averages 4193, which is 1.2% lower than the Quadro K3000M. The picture is one of a part sitting in a crowded mid-range band, where a few points either way separate it from several contemporaries.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710, by contrast, sits at the 22nd percentile overall. Its nearest rivals are also close: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 averages 3823 (0.8% above), the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 averages 3834 (1.1% above), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M averages 3740 (1.4% below). The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M averages 3718, which is 2% below the Intel part. The Intel GPU’s average benchmark score across its two recorded tests is 3792, which reflects its lower OpenCL result and its stronger Vulkan showing.

In isolation, the head-to-head result is unambiguous: the Quadro K3000M leads by a fifth in the one shared benchmark. But the surrounding data adds nuance. The Intel part’s Vulkan score of 4088 is within 3.6% of the Quadro’s OpenCL score, which suggests that in certain modern API workloads, the Intel graphics engine may be more competitive than the OpenCL gap implies. Still, for raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the NVIDIA part holds a clear edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 21.3% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s score of 3496. The NVIDIA part wins the only shared benchmark in the database.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 have any benchmark advantage?

A: The Intel part records a Vulkan score of 4088, but there is no Vulkan result for the Quadro K3000M in the database, so no comparison can be made. Its average benchmark score is 3792, which is lower than the Quadro’s 4241.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against their nearest competitors?

A: The Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile, with its closest rival being the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (0.6% higher). The Intel UHD Graphics 710 sits at the 22nd percentile, with its closest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3823 (0.8% higher).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a higher pixel rate at 10.40 GPixel/s compared to 7.848 GPixel/s for the Quadro K3000M. However, the Quadro has a much higher texture rate at 31.39 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s for the Intel part.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses the Alder Lake chip with Intel’s Generation 12.2 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The database records no transistor count, die size, or density for the Intel part.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That means the NVIDIA part has 4.5 times the shader count, 6 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. This explains the large texture rate advantage: 31.39 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s for the Intel part.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K3000M runs at a flat 654 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock that boosts to 1300 MHz, a 4.3x increase under load. The Intel part also supports FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro records no FP16 capability. FP32 performance is reversed: the Quadro delivers 753.4 GFLOPS versus 332.8 GFLOPS for the Intel part.

API support shows a generation gap. The Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the Intel part reflect its more modern architecture, even though its raw compute throughput is lower.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category recorded in the database.

Process and packaging: The Quadro K3000M uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses a 10 nm Intel process; no transistor or die data is recorded.

Clocks: The Quadro runs at 654 MHz base and boost, with 700 MHz memory (2.8 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a 300 MHz base and a 1300 MHz boost, with system shared memory.

Memory: The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth.

Compute units: The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Rates: The Quadro’s pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s. The Intel part’s pixel rate is 10.40 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 10.40 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16: The Quadro delivers 753.4 GFLOPS FP32 and no recorded FP16. The Intel part delivers 332.8 GFLOPS FP32 and 665.6 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Power and form factor: The Quadro has a 75 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot, and has no power connectors. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface.

Display outputs: The Quadro’s outputs are portable device dependent; the Intel part’s are motherboard dependent.

API versions: The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Release and status: The Quadro K3000M launched on 2012-05-31 and is end-of-life. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 launched on 2022-01-03 and is also end-of-life. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M; the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split verdict. For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the stronger part, with a 21.3% higher score and roughly double the FP32 throughput. Its 4.5x shading unit count and 6x TMU count give it a decisive edge in texture-heavy tasks, and its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth avoids the system dependent penalties of shared memory. Users who need maximum raw compute in legacy OpenCL environments should choose the Quadro K3000M.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710, however, has its own strengths. Its 10 nm process is more modern, and its 1300 MHz boost clock is more than double the Quadro’s flat 654 MHz. It supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part also offers FP16 support at 665.6 GFLOPS, a feature absent from the Quadro’s recorded specifications. Its higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s suggests better fill-rate performance in certain rendering scenarios.

The power draw difference is significant: 15 W for the Intel part versus 75 W for the NVIDIA part. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is an integrated GPU with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it requires no separate card slot or power connectors. The Quadro K3000M is an MXM module, which implies a laptop or compact form factor but still carries a five times higher TDP.

The percentile rankings reflect the overall picture. The Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile, the Intel part at the 22nd. Both are near the lower end of the database’s GPU population, but the Quadro is measurably ahead in the shared benchmark. The Intel part’s Vulkan score of 4088, however, hints that in modern API workloads, the gap may narrow substantially, even if no direct Vulkan result exists for the Quadro.

For users prioritizing compute throughput and dedicated memory, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the data-backed choice. For users prioritizing low power, modern API support, and integrated simplicity, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the better fit. The database records one clear win for the NVIDIA part, but the broader specification differences show two GPUs designed for very different roles.