Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 and the Intel UHD Graphics 750, with the Quadro winning both head-to-head tests by a substantial margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P2200 scored 32,344 points against the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 6,743 points, a delta of 379.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is not a marginal advantage; it represents a multi-generational leap in raw compute throughput for the discrete GPU.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly smaller gap. The Quadro P2200 posted 31,351 points in the Geekbench Vulkan test, while the Intel integrated solution managed 8,138 points. That translates to a 285.2% delta, still a commanding lead for the NVIDIA part. The fact that the Vulkan gap is narrower than the OpenCL gap suggests the Intel iGPU's architecture handles the Vulkan API relatively better than OpenCL, but it remains far behind in absolute terms.

Looking at the broader benchmark database, the Quadro P2200's average benchmark score is 8,686, which places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (average score 8,743, delta -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (average score 8,746, delta -0.7%), the AMD FirePro W5170M (average score 8,595, delta 1.1%), and the Intel Arc A380 (average score 8,558, delta 1.5%). This places the Quadro P2200 in a tightly contested mid-range performance band, where it trades blows with these cards within a 2.2 percentage point range.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 7,441, landing in the 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average score 7,447, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (average score 7,425, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (average score 7,472, delta -0.4%), and the Intel Arc A310 (average score 7,550, delta -1.4%). The Intel integrated part sits in a similar competitive cluster, but at a lower absolute performance level than the Quadro.

The per-test breakdown for the Quadro P2200 shows its strongest showing in the Passmark G3D test with a score of 9,364, followed by 3,921 in the Passmark GPU Compute test. Its legacy DirectX scores are modest by comparison: 167 in DirectX 9, 70 in DirectX 11, 45 in DirectX 10, and 33 in DirectX 12. The 2D test score of 881 indicates that the Quadro's strength lies in 3D and compute workloads, not 2D rasterization.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 is the superior performer across every measured benchmark. The 379.7% lead in OpenCL and 285.2% lead in Vulkan over the Intel UHD Graphics 750 are not close enough to leave any room for interpretation. For any workload that relies on GPU compute, the Quadro P2200 is the only rational choice between these two.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is not without its place in the database. Its 15 W TDP and integrated nature make it a fundamentally different class of product. The Quadro P2200 draws 75 W and requires a dedicated PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, while the Intel part operates as an IGP on the Ring Bus with no power connectors at all. For users constrained by a motherboard's integrated graphics capabilities, the UHD 750 is the only option of the two that can exist without a discrete card.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split: the Quadro P2200 sits at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, the UHD 750 at the 40th. That four-point gap is meaningful in a database with thousands of entries, but it also shows that the Intel part is not an outlier on the low end; it competes with mid-range mobile and low-end desktop parts like the Radeon HD 8850M and the GeForce GTX 1650.

Who should pick which? The data says this: anyone needing compute performance for OpenCL or Vulkan workloads should choose the Quadro P2200 without hesitation. The UHD 750 is only defensible in a system where physical space, power budget, or slot availability preclude a discrete GPU. The database does not record a single benchmark where the Intel part wins, so the verdict is one-sided.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from different architectural lineages, and the recorded specifications illustrate just how far apart they are. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses the Rocket Lake chip on the Generation 12.1 architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. Both are end-of-life products, but they target entirely different use cases.

The transistor counts tell a story of scale. The Quadro P2200 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but its architecture is fundamentally different: it is a graphics block integrated into a CPU die, sharing the Ring Bus for data transfer.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The Quadro P2200 runs at a base clock of 1,000 MHz with a boost of 1,493 MHz, while the UHD 750 idles at a 300 MHz base and boosts to 1,300 MHz. The memory subsystem is where the gap widens further. The Quadro has 5 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The memory clock for the Quadro is 1,251 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the UHD 750's memory clock is simply "System Shared."

The compute resources are radically different. The Quadro P2200 features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The UHD 750 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 5:1 ratio in shading units, 5:1 in TMUs, and 5:1 in ROPs, which helps explain the massive benchmark deltas.

Theoretical throughput figures confirm the architectural gap. The Quadro P2200 achieves a pixel rate of 59.72 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 119.4 GTexel/s, while the UHD 750 manages 10.40 GPixel/s and 20.80 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Quadro delivers 3.822 TFLOPS against the UHD 750's 665.6 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the FP16 comparison reverses the trend: the Quadro P2200 produces only 59.72 GFLOPS at FP16 (a 1:64 ratio), while the UHD 750 produces 1,331.2 GFLOPS (a 2:1 ratio). This means the Intel part is far more efficient at half-precision arithmetic, a quirk of its Generation 12.1 design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2200, with 3.822 TFLOPS against the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 665.6 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro P2200 has a dedicated 200.2 GB/s bandwidth via 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus. The UHD 750 uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The database lists both as end-of-life products. The Quadro P2200 was released in June 2019, and the UHD 750 in March 2021.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), as well as OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: Its average score of 7,441 is within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447), AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472), and Intel Arc A310 (7,550).

Q: What is the power draw of each GPU?

A: The Quadro P2200 has a TDP of 75 W with no power connectors required, while the UHD 750 has a TDP of 15 W as an integrated graphics processor.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its OpenCL score of 32,344 is 379.7% ahead of the Intel part, and its Vulkan score of 31,351 is 285.2% ahead. For any workload that the database measures, the Quadro is the clear winner. This includes compute-heavy tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, and any application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute shaders.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it wins in one practical domain: power efficiency and integration. At 15 W, it consumes one-fifth the power of the Quadro's 75 W. It requires no power connectors, no PCIe slot, and no physical space beyond the CPU package. For systems where a discrete GPU cannot fit, the UHD 750 is the only viable option of the two.

The FP16 capability of the UHD 750 is worth noting: at 1,331.2 GFLOPS, it significantly outperforms the Quadro's 59.72 GFLOPS in half-precision arithmetic. This suggests that for AI inference or other FP16-centric workloads, the Intel part might have a niche advantage, though the database does not record any FP16-specific benchmark results to confirm this.

Specification Differences

The table below summarizes the key recorded specifications where the two GPUs differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | Intel UHD Graphics 750 |

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

| Chip | GP106 | Rocket Lake |

| Architecture | Pascal | Generation 12.1 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm+++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1493 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory | 5 GB GDDR5X | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 160 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 256 |

| TMUs | 80 | 16 |

| ROPs | 40 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 20.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.822 TFLOPS | 665.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not applicable |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Motherboard Dependent |

| Release Date | June 2019 | March 2021 |