Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two graphics solutions, with each claiming victory in a different API workload. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 takes the OpenCL test decisively, posting a score of 8831 against Intel's 6743, a 31% advantage. This is the kind of gap that shows up in compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, where the Quadro's dedicated memory and higher raw throughput matter.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750, on the other hand, wins the Vulkan test. Its score of 8138 edges out the Quadro's 7698, a 5.4% margin. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can benefit from efficient driver overhead and modern architecture design, and the data suggests Intel's integrated solution handles this workload better despite being a fraction of the Quadro's physical footprint.

Looking at the overall averages, the Quadro K1200 sits at 8265 average benchmark score, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 averages 7441, putting it in the 40th percentile. These are close percentile positions, but the distribution of wins is what matters: the Quadro is the stronger OpenCL performer while Intel counters in Vulkan.

What is interesting here is that the two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro is a discrete workstation card with its own 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus, while the UHD 750 is an integrated processor graphics unit sharing system memory. Yet in Vulkan, the integrated part wins. That suggests API efficiency and architecture generation can offset memory bandwidth disadvantages, at least in this specific workload.

The Verdict

The data does not point to a single universal winner. Instead, the choice depends on the workload.

For OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is clearly the stronger option. Its 31% lead in geekbench_opencl is substantial, and its average benchmark score of 8265 is 11% higher than Intel's 7441. The Quadro also has dedicated GDDR5 memory, which matters for sustained workloads where system memory sharing can become a bottleneck.

For Vulkan-based applications, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 takes the crown. A 5.4% win in geekbench_vulkan shows that the newer Generation 12.1 architecture, despite being an IGP, can outperform an older discrete card in this API. The UHD 750 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a newer feature level than the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for compatibility with modern titles.

The production status of both is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. But the data shows that if a system already has one of these, the strengths are clear: the Quadro for compute-oriented OpenCL tasks, the UHD 750 for Vulkan and newer DirectX feature levels. Systems with the Intel IGP also benefit from zero extra power draw beyond the 15 W TDP of the integrated graphics, whereas the Quadro carries a 45 W TDP of its own.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmark tests tell opposite stories, and the margins are worth examining closely.

In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8831 against the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 6743. That is a 31% delta. The Quadro's hardware advantages, 512 shading units against 256, 32 texture mapping units against 16, and 16 ROPs against 8, all align with this result. Its FP32 throughput of 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS is also consistent with a large OpenCL gap. The memory subsystem reinforces this: 80.19 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth versus system shared memory with dependent bandwidth.

In geekbench_vulkan, the tables turn. Intel scores 8138 while NVIDIA scores 7698, a 5.4% delta in Intel's favor. This is a much narrower margin than the OpenCL result, but it is still a clear win. The Intel part's boost clock of 1300 MHz is notably higher than the Quadro's 1033 MHz boost, and the newer Generation 12.1 architecture likely handles Vulkan's explicit command model more efficiently. The UHD 750 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), suggesting a more modern feature set despite lower raw compute.

The nearest rival data for each part adds context. The Quadro sits within 1.7% of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, GeForce GTX 980, GTX 950M, and Radeon R9 M360 in average score. The Intel UHD 750 sits within 1.4% of the Radeon HD 8850M, Radeon R7 350, GeForce GTX 1650, and Arc A310. Neither part is an outlier in its respective performance tier; they are both mid-pack solutions that happen to trade blows in different APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200, with an average benchmark score of 8265 compared to the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 7441. The Quadro sits in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs while Intel sits in the 40th.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The Quadro K1200 scores 8831 in geekbench_opencl versus 6743 for the UHD 750, a 31% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the Intel integrated GPU win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The UHD 750 scores 8138 in geekbench_vulkan against the Quadro's 7698, a 5.4% win for Intel.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 750 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP requirements of each?

A: The Quadro K1200 has a 45 W TDP and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The UHD 750 has a 15 W TDP and draws power as an integrated part of the CPU package.

Q: Which supports newer DirectX features?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from entirely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 is built on the GM107 chip using the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses the Rocket Lake chip with Generation 12.1 architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. No transistor count or die size is recorded in the database for the Intel part.

The core configurations differ substantially. The Quadro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The UHD 750 has exactly half of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This halving is consistent across the board, yet the Intel part still manages to win in Vulkan, which points to architectural efficiency rather than raw resource counts.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro runs at a 954 MHz base with a 1033 MHz boost. The UHD 750 starts at 300 MHz base but boosts to 1300 MHz, a much wider dynamic range. This suggests the Intel IGP can ramp up aggressively under load, while the Quadro operates in a narrower band.

Memory architecture is the most fundamental split. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s. The UHD 750 has no dedicated memory at all, using system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This makes the Intel part entirely dependent on the host system's RAM speed and capacity.

The compute rates reflect these differences. The Quadro achieves 16.53 GPixel/s pixel rate, 33.06 GTexel/s texture rate, and 1,057.8 GFLOPS FP32. The UHD 750 achieves 10.40 GPixel/s, 20.80 GTexel/s, and 665.6 GFLOPS FP32. Interestingly, the Intel part also lists FP16 performance at 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The physical form factors could not be more different. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot discrete card measuring 160 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with no power connectors required and a 200 W suggested PSU. The UHD 750 is an IGP with no slot width, no dimensions, and no power connectors, drawing all power through the motherboard.

The bus interfaces differ: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the UHD 750 connects via Ring Bus. Display outputs also diverge, with the Quadro offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors while the UHD 750's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Memory details are starkly different: 4 GB GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth for the Quadro, versus system shared for the Intel part. The memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all recorded as system dependent for the UHD 750.

Process nodes differ significantly: 28 nm at TSMC for NVIDIA versus 14 nm+++ at Intel. The Quadro's transistor density is recorded at 12.6M per mm², while the Intel part has no density figure.

Release dates are far apart: the Quadro launched on 2015-01-27, while the UHD 750 arrived on 2021-03-29. Both are now end-of-life. The Quadro's predecessor is listed as Quadro Fermi and successor as Quadro Maxwell, while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.