Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and Intel UHD Graphics 730 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a dedicated workstation card, the other an integrated processor graphics unit. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the details reveal more than just a simple gap. The Quadro P2000, built on Pascal with 1,024 shading units, produces a Passmark G3D score of 6,956 and an average benchmark score of 6,049. The Intel UHD Graphics 730, with 192 shading units, manages only a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,988 and Vulkan score of 5,870, with no other benchmark entries recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests both go decisively to the NVIDIA Quadro P2000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 against 5,988 for the Intel UHD Graphics 730, a delta of 236.1%. That is not a marginal advantage; it is more than triple the raw score. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: the Quadro P2000 hits 23,566 while the Intel part manages 5,870, yielding a 301.5% delta. These are not niche workloads; OpenCL and Vulkan cover compute and modern graphics APIs, respectively.

The gap in raw scores stems from fundamental resource differences. The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 raster output pipelines. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. With roughly 5.3 times the shading units and 5 times the TMUs, the Quadro P2000’s advantage in parallel throughput is expected. Its pixel rate of 59.20 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s for the Intel part further confirms the fill-rate disparity.

Interestingly, the Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story for the Quadro P2000 alone. Its DirectX 9 score of 124 is far higher than its DirectX 12 score of 28, and its DirectX 10 score is 34 versus DirectX 11 at 47. This suggests the card’s strongest legacy API performance lies in older workloads, while its modern API scores are more modest. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has no Passmark entries, so direct comparison in those tests is impossible.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses the Rocket Lake chip on Generation 12.1 architecture, built on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. Intel’s transistor count and die size are not listed, but the process node alone indicates a less dense design.

Memory configuration is a major divider. The Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses System Shared memory, meaning it borrows from the CPU’s main memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent. This is a critical architectural difference: dedicated VRAM with high bandwidth versus shared memory with variable performance.

Compute capabilities also diverge sharply. The Quadro P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 47.36 GFLOPS of FP16 (at a 1:64 ratio). The Intel UHD Graphics 730 offers 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 and 998.4 GFLOPS of FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). Notably, the Intel part’s FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate, suggesting a different compute pipeline optimized for half-precision, while the Quadro P2000 heavily prioritizes FP32.

Power and form factor further set them apart. The Quadro P2000 is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, drawing power from the motherboard via a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs on the Quadro P2000 are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Intel part’s outputs are motherboard dependent.

Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature levels are identical. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The Quadro P2000 was released on 2017-02-05, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 came later on 2021-03-29. Both are marked end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6,049, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 5,929. The Quadro P2000 leads by about 2%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P2000 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 23,566 versus 5,870 for the Intel UHD Graphics 730, a 301.5% delta. This is the largest single-test advantage in the data.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 730 have any benchmark wins over the Quadro P2000?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel part loses both tests. The win count is 2 for the Quadro P2000 and 0 for the Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a fixed 140.2 GB/s bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent, meaning it varies with the host system.

Q: How do their FP32 compute rates compare?

A: The Quadro P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro P2000 is roughly 6 times faster in FP32.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, so their API feature sets are identical.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for raw performance: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the stronger GPU by every measurable metric. Its average benchmark score of 6,049 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 sits at the 33rd percentile. The Quadro P2000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (average 6,077, delta -0.5%) and the AMD Radeon 760M (average 6,019, delta 0.5%). The Intel UHD Graphics 730’s nearest rivals are older mobile parts like the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (average 5,955, delta -0.4%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (average 5,957, delta -0.5%).

For compute-heavy tasks, the Quadro P2000’s 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth give it a decisive edge. The Intel UHD Graphics 730, with 499.2 GFLOPS FP32 and shared memory, is suited for basic display output and light 2D workloads. The Quadro P2000’s 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it a multi-monitor workstation card, whereas the Intel part’s outputs depend entirely on the motherboard.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 has one clear advantage: power consumption. At 15 W TDP versus 75 W for the Quadro P2000, it consumes one-fifth the power and requires no additional PSU headroom. For systems where power efficiency is paramount and performance expectations are minimal, the Intel part is viable. For any task requiring meaningful 3D rendering, compute, or high-bandwidth memory access, the Quadro P2000 is the only choice from this data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on Pascal architecture, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses Rocket Lake on Generation 12.1. Process nodes are 16 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm+++ (Intel). The Quadro P2000 has 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die; the Intel part lists no transistor count or die size.

Clock speeds differ: the Quadro P2000 runs at 1076 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Intel UHD Graphics 730 runs at 300 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost, with memory described only as System Shared. Memory size is 5 GB GDDR5 versus System Shared, with bus widths of 160 bit versus System Shared, and bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s versus System Dependent.

Shading units are 1,024 versus 192, TMUs are 64 versus 12, and ROPs are 40 versus 8. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s, texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, and FP16 is 47.36 GFLOPS versus 998.4 GFLOPS. TDP is 75 W versus 15 W. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are none versus null. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus null. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus motherboard dependent. Dimensions are 196 mm by 111 mm versus null.

Release dates are 2017-02-05 versus 2021-03-29. The Quadro P2000 has a predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta); the Intel part has neither.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in raw compute, memory bandwidth, and fill rates. Its 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for GPU-accelerated rendering, video encoding, and scientific compute. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups. Its Passmark G2D score of 626 and G3D score of 6,956 indicate strong 2D and 3D performance, though its DirectX 12 score of 28 is low, suggesting limited modern gaming capability.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins in power efficiency and system simplicity. At 15 W TDP, it draws no additional power and requires no separate card slot. Its FP16 rate of 998.4 GFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate, suggests it can handle half-precision workloads relatively better than the Quadro P2000, which has an FP16 rate of 47.36 GFLOPS. For basic office tasks, video playback, or systems where a dedicated GPU is impractical, the Intel part is sufficient.

The benchmark data shows no overlap in their strengths. The Quadro P2000 leads in every head-to-head test by at least 236%, and its average score is 120 points higher. The Intel UHD Graphics 730’s only advantages are power draw and form factor, which are not captured in benchmark scores. Users needing compute or professional graphics should choose the Quadro P2000; users needing a low-power integrated solution should choose the Intel UHD Graphics 730.