Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 750 and NVIDIA Quadro M5000M occupy very different performance tiers despite both being end-of-life products. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M across every tested workload, with the Intel solution trailing by roughly 67% to 71% in compute and graphics API tests. The Quadro M5000M's dedicated memory subsystem and larger execution resource pool fundamentally separate it from the integrated Intel part, which relies on shared system memory and a fraction of the shading units.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a higher average benchmark score of 7441, compared to 6481 for the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M. This average includes a broader range of tests for the NVIDIA part, including several legacy DirectX and compute workloads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22920, which is 70.6% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 6743. The Intel part trails significantly in this compute-oriented API test.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 24875 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 8138. The NVIDIA part holds a 67.3% lead in this workload.

Q: Which GPU has the higher fillrate specifications?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has a pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 100.9 GTexel/s. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.80 GTexel/s.

Q: What process node does each GPU use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses Intel's 14 nm+++ process, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses TSMC's 28 nm process. The Intel part uses a more advanced node.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W. The NVIDIA part requires substantially more power.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is built on Generation 12.1 architecture with the Rocket Lake chip, using Intel's 14 nm+++ process. It features 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost clock of 1300 MHz. Its memory interface is entirely system shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth is system dependent. This integrated graphics solution connects via Ring Bus and is designed as an IGP, with display outputs dependent on the motherboard.

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The GPU has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. Its base clock is 962 MHz with a boost clock of 1051 MHz, and it uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock runs at 1253 MHz, or 5 Gbps effective. This is a discrete MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface.

Key architectural differences include the massive gap in shading units (256 vs 1536), texture units (16 vs 96), and raster operations units (8 vs 64). The NVIDIA part also has a dedicated memory system with fixed bandwidth, while the Intel part relies on system memory with variable performance. The Intel part has a much smaller die and likely lower transistor count, though exact figures are not recorded for the Intel chip. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the execution hardware behind those APIs is vastly different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison includes only two benchmark entries, both of which favor the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 22920 versus 6743 for the Intel UHD Graphics 750, a delta of -70.6% for the Intel part. This means the Quadro M5000M is roughly 3.4 times faster in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. The Intel part's 665.6 GFLOPS FP32 performance cannot match the Quadro's 3.229 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 24875 against the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 8138, with a delta of -67.3%. The Vulkan test also shows the NVIDIA part delivering more than three times the performance. The NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count and dedicated memory bandwidth contribute directly to these results. The Intel part's 1,331.2 GFLOPS FP16 performance (2:1 ratio) does not translate into a competitive advantage in the recorded tests.

The NVIDIA part also has a wide set of additional benchmarks not recorded for the Intel part, including PassMark DirectX 9 at 119, DirectX 10 at 35, DirectX 11 at 54, DirectX 12 at 29, G2D at 476, G3D at 7062, and GPU compute at 2756. These scores indicate legacy DirectX performance and compute capability that the Intel part does not have recorded. The wins tally shows 0 for Intel and 2 for NVIDIA across the shared tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark shared between the two GPUs. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 holds a higher average benchmark score only because the NVIDIA part includes several low-scoring legacy DirectX tests in its average, which pulls its overall number down. For any modern workload measured by Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M5000M delivers over 3 times the performance.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750's only advantages come from its process node (14 nm+++ vs 28 nm) and its dramatically lower TDP of 15 W versus 100 W. For users constrained by power or thermal limits, the Intel part is the more efficient choice. However, for raw graphics and compute performance, the NVIDIA part is in a different class. The Quadro M5000M's 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the Intel part's system shared memory is a decisive factor in memory-intensive workloads.

Given the benchmark results, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the clear choice for tasks requiring maximum graphics throughput, compute performance, or dedicated VRAM. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is suitable for basic display output and light workloads where power consumption is critical. Its percentile ranking of 40 versus the NVIDIA's 37 reflects the average of all tests, but the head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA part winning decisively in modern API benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics 750 | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |

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

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | 1051 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 16 | 96 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.80 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 665.6 GFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Release Date | 2021-03-29 | 2015-08-17 |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro M5000M wins in:

• All compute-heavy workloads measured by Geekbench OpenCL, where it leads by 70.6%.
• Vulkan graphics workloads, where it leads by 67.3%.
• Displays with high resolution or high refresh rates, given its 67.26 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 10.40 GPixel/s for the Intel part.
• Texture-heavy rendering, with a 100.9 GTexel/s texture rate versus 20.80 GTexel/s.
• Applications that benefit from 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.
• Professional mobile workstations that require MXM module form factors.

Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins in:

• Power-constrained environments, with a 15 W TDP versus 100 W for the NVIDIA part.
• Systems where integrated graphics are sufficient, avoiding the need for a discrete module.
• Efficiency per watt in light workloads, given its 14 nm+++ process versus 28 nm for the NVIDIA part.
• Scenarios where the motherboard determines display outputs, offering flexibility in desktop builds.
• Average benchmark score comparisons, where its 7441 average exceeds the NVIDIA's 6481, though this is skewed by the NVIDIA's legacy test suite.