Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two parts: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 6,743 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010's 6,698 points. That gives Intel a 0.7% lead, a margin so slim it falls within typical run-to-run variance. The Intel part wins the only head-to-head test on record, but the data does not suggest a meaningful performance gap in OpenCL workloads.

Looking at the wider benchmark picture, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has an average benchmark score of 7,441 across all recorded tests, which includes both its OpenCL result and a Vulkan score of 8,138. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, which only has the single OpenCL result recorded, averages 6,698. The 11.1% gap in average scores favors Intel, but this is partly because the Intel part has a second, stronger Vulkan result pulling its average up. The Vulkan score of 8,138 represents a 21.5% improvement over its own OpenCL score, suggesting the Intel architecture handles Vulkan workloads particularly well.

The Intel part's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 40th percentile, while the NVIDIA part sits at 38th percentile. Both occupy the lower-middle range of the database, and the 2 percentile point difference is small in practical terms. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 average score (0.1% behind Intel), the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7,425 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472 (0.4% ahead), and the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (1.4% ahead). These deltas show the Intel UHD Graphics 750 clustering tightly with a group of discrete GPUs from several generations, with no single rival establishing a commanding lead.

For the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M370 at 6,764 average score (1% ahead of NVIDIA), the AMD Radeon R7 M460 at 6,612 (1.3% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6,581 (1.8% behind), and the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6,830 (1.9% ahead). The GT 1010 sits in a similar tight cluster, with all four rivals within roughly 2% of its score. The data shows both parts performing at a comparable level, with Intel holding a slight edge in the one direct comparison and a larger edge in average scores across all recorded benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split between these two parts is stark. Intel uses a Generation 12.1 architecture on a 14 nm+++ process node from Intel's own foundry, while NVIDIA uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm node from Samsung. Both process nodes are labeled 14 nm, but the Intel node carries the "+++" designation, indicating a mature, refined version of the process. The NVIDIA chip, codenamed GP108, is built on a plain 14 nm node.

The NVIDIA part has published physical details that the Intel part lacks. The GP108 die measures 74 mm² and contains 1,800 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 750, being an integrated graphics processor on the Rocket Lake chip, has no separate die size or transistor count recorded in the database. Its memory subsystem is entirely system-dependent: shared memory, shared type, shared bus width, and bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The GT 1010, by contrast, has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory pool on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel part runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 1,300 MHz. The NVIDIA part starts at 1,228 MHz base and boosts to 1,468 MHz, with memory clocked at 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA clocks are far higher at the base level, but both reach similar boost ranges. Shader resources are identical on paper: 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs for each. Neither part has ray tracing cores or tensor cores recorded.

The throughput numbers reflect the clock differences. NVIDIA achieves 11.74 GPixel/s pixel rate and 23.49 GTexel/s texture rate, versus Intel's 10.40 GPixel/s and 20.80 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, NVIDIA reaches 751.6 GFLOPS against Intel's 665.6 GFLOPS, a 12.9% advantage. The Intel part lists FP16 performance of 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA part has no FP16 figure recorded. Power draw favors Intel: 15 W TDP versus 30 W for NVIDIA, meaning the integrated part consumes half the power of the discrete card. The GT 1010 requires a 200 W suggested PSU, while the Intel part draws power through the motherboard with no separate PSU recommendation.

The bus interface also separates them. Intel uses a Ring Bus, typical for integrated graphics, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The GT 1010 is a single-slot card measuring 147 mm (5.8 inches) with display outputs of 1x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 2.0. The Intel part's display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent" and it occupies no slot width since it is an IGP. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is equal.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in the only recorded head-to-head test, taking Geekbench OpenCL by 0.7%. Its Vulkan score of 8,138 is its strongest recorded result and demonstrates a clear aptitude for Vulkan workloads. The Intel part also wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP that is half the GT 1010's 30 W. For systems relying on shared memory, the Intel part's flexibility is an advantage: it can draw from whatever system RAM is available rather than being limited to a fixed 2 GB pool.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 wins on raw compute throughput across the board. Its FP32 figure of 751.6 GFLOPS exceeds Intel's 665.6 GFLOPS by 12.9%. Its pixel rate of 11.74 GPixel/s and texture rate of 23.49 GTexel/s both beat Intel's corresponding figures. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for workloads that need consistent, predictable memory performance, since the Intel part's bandwidth is entirely dependent on system memory configuration.

The NVIDIA part also wins on clock stability. Its base clock of 1,228 MHz is more than four times Intel's 300 MHz base, meaning the GT 1010 delivers near-peak performance without relying on boost behavior. The Intel part spends far more time at low clocks when idle or lightly loaded, which benefits power consumption but creates a larger gap between its base and boost states. For users who need consistent performance regardless of workload variation, the GT 1010's narrower clock range is more predictable.

In the context of their nearest rivals, the Intel part's average score of 7,441 places it essentially tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, only 0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, 0.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472, 0.4% behind). The NVIDIA GT 1010's average of 6,698 puts it 1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M370 and 1.9% behind the AMD FirePro M5100. This places the Intel part in a slightly higher performance tier among its peers, while the GT 1010 sits among lower-scoring mobile and entry desktop parts.

The Verdict

The data supports a narrow but consistent verdict for the Intel UHD Graphics 750. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison, holds a higher average benchmark score (7,441 versus 6,698), ranks two percentile points higher among all GPUs, and does all of this at half the power draw. The Intel part is the better choice for users who need general graphics performance with minimal power consumption and who can rely on system memory for the frame buffer.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 is the pick when dedicated memory and raw throughput matter more than the benchmark scores suggest. Its FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate figures all exceed Intel's, and the 2 GB GDDR5 allocation provides a fixed memory pool that does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth. The GT 1010 also offers a discrete card form factor with standard display outputs, which may be the deciding factor for systems without a modern integrated GPU or for users who need a specific output configuration.

For Vulkan-specific workloads, the Intel part is clearly superior based on its recorded 8,138 Vulkan score. For OpenCL, the race is essentially a tie at 0.7% separation. Users whose applications favor Vulkan should choose Intel without hesitation. Users whose applications are compute-bound and benefit from dedicated memory bandwidth may find the GT 1010's specifications more compelling, even though the benchmark data does not show it winning any recorded test.

The end-of-life status of both products means neither is a forward-looking purchase. The GT 1010 lists a predecessor in the GeForce 900 series and a successor in the GeForce 20 series, situating it as a bridge product. The Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor, being an integrated solution tied to the Rocket Lake platform.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the head-to-head test?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 6,743 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010's 6,698 by 0.7%.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has an average score of 7,441 across its two recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 averages 6,698 from its single OpenCL result.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a 15 W TDP, exactly half the 30 W TDP of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 pool on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do they rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 sits at the 40th percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics 750 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | Samsung |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1,228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,300 MHz | 1,468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1,502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 48.06 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | 11.74 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.80 GTexel/s | 23.49 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 665.6 GFLOPS | 751.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 |

| Length | Not recorded | 147 mm, 5.8 inches |

| Release Date | 2021-03-29 | 2021-01-12 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Not recorded | GeForce 20 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 6,743 | 6,698 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | 8,138 | Not recorded |

| Average Benchmark Score | 7,441 | 6,698 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 40 | 38 |