Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and Intel UHD Graphics 750 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, yet both appear in the same benchmark database with nearly identical overall percentile rankings. The Quadro P5000 sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 sits at the 40th percentile. This proximity in percentile ranking, however, masks a profound performance gulf in raw compute workloads. The data shows two distinct tools: the Quadro P5000 is a professional workstation accelerator with a 16 GB GDDR5X frame buffer and 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the UHD Graphics 750 is a 15 W integrated processor graphics solution sharing system memory. Their head-to-head benchmark results are starkly split, with each winning decisively in one of the two common tests.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 dominates compute-oriented workloads with overwhelming margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 points against the UHD Graphics 750's 6,743 points, a delta of 678.7% in favor of the discrete card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a full order-of-magnitude separation that reflects the fundamental difference in hardware resources. The Quadro P5000 fields 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, paired with a 256-bit memory bus delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel solution, by contrast, deploys 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with bandwidth that is system-dependent and shared with the CPU. For any OpenCL-accelerated professional application — rendering, simulation, data processing — the Quadro P5000 is the only viable choice between the two.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 wins the cross-platform graphics API battle in the Vulkan test. It scores 8,138 points compared to the Quadro P5000's 6,342 points, a 22.1% advantage. This is a surprising result given the hardware disparity, but benchmark results indicate the UHD Graphics 750's newer Generation 12.1 architecture handles Vulkan's explicit command and memory model more efficiently at lower absolute workloads. The Intel part's FP16 throughput of 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is also double its FP32 rate, whereas the Quadro P5000's FP16 performance is a minuscule 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), showing a deliberate design choice favoring FP32 precision over half-rate throughput. For lightweight Vulkan-based applications, game titles, or compositing workloads, the integrated Intel GPU can outperform the aging Pascal professional card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is enormous. The Quadro P5000 uses NVIDIA's GP104 chip built on a 16 nm TSMC process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process as part of the Rocket Lake generation, with no transistor count or die size listed in the data. The process node difference alone explains much of the power envelope discrepancy: the Quadro P5000 carries a 180 W TDP and requires a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested power supply, while the UHD Graphics 750 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no dedicated power connectors.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental split. The Quadro P5000 features 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, running at 1127 MHz with 9 Gbps effective speed, yielding 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The UHD Graphics 750 uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system-dependent. This means the Intel GPU's performance scales with the host system's RAM configuration, while the Quadro P5000 has dedicated, guaranteed bandwidth. The Quadro P5000 also offers dedicated display outputs: 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the UHD Graphics 750's outputs are motherboard-dependent, varying by platform implementation.

Compute capabilities differ sharply in half-precision handling. The Quadro P5000 delivers 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 but only 138.6 GFLOPS FP16, a 1:64 ratio that indicates heavy optimization for single-precision professional workloads. The UHD Graphics 750 produces 665.6 GFLOPS FP32 and 1,331.2 GFLOPS FP16, a 2:1 ratio that makes it better suited for mixed-precision workloads. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity exists despite the hardware differences. The Quadro P5000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the UHD Graphics 750 connects via Ring Bus, reflecting its integrated nature.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. For professional, compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL — think engineering simulation, scientific visualization, or content creation — the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the definitive choice. Its 678.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 16 GB of dedicated GDDR5X memory and 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, makes it categorically superior for any task that stresses raw throughput. The Quadro P5000's launch MSRP was 2,499 USD, positioning it as a professional workstation part, and its nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8,053, and the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost at 8,067, all within 0.5% of its 8,039 average.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the pragmatic choice for Vulkan-based workloads and systems where power consumption and integration matter more than absolute performance. Its 22.1% Vulkan advantage over the Quadro P5000, combined with a 15 W TDP versus 180 W, makes it appropriate for lightweight desktop or laptop systems that need basic 3D acceleration without a discrete graphics card. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447, the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7,425, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 at 7,472, and the Intel Arc A310 at 7,550, showing it clusters with entry-level discrete and integrated solutions. Users needing a quiet, low-power system for Vulkan-capable applications should choose the UHD Graphics 750; users needing professional-grade compute performance must select the Quadro P5000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is dramatically faster, scoring 52,509 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Intel UHD Graphics 750's 6,743, a 678.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 beat the Quadro P5000 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the UHD Graphics 750 scores 8,138 versus the Quadro P5000's 6,342, giving the Intel part a 22.1% lead.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD Graphics 750 uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Quadro P5000 has a 180 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, a single 8-pin power connector, and a 450 W suggested power supply. The UHD Graphics 750 has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no power connectors, and no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature support is identical between the two.

Q: What is the FP16 compute capability of each GPU?

A: The Quadro P5000 delivers 138.6 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio), while the UHD Graphics 750 delivers 1,331.2 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), making the Intel part significantly better at half-precision workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the largest performance gap in the head-to-head comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 points, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 manages only 6,743 points. This 678.7% delta is the single most decisive result in the dataset. To put this in context, the Quadro P5000's average benchmark score across all tests is 8,039, while the UHD Graphics 750 averages 7,441 — a difference of only 8% in overall averages, yet the OpenCL test shows a nearly seven-fold gulf. The reason lies in the hardware: the Quadro P5000's 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 288.5 GB/s dedicated bandwidth allow it to feed its 2,560 shading units at full rate, whereas the UHD Graphics 750's 665.6 GFLOPS FP32 and system-shared memory bottleneck the integrated design.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 8,138, beating the NVIDIA Quadro P5000's 6,342 by 22.1%. This is notable because the Quadro P5000 has 10 times the shading units and 43 times the FP32 throughput, yet loses in this API-specific workload. The UHD Graphics 750's advantage likely stems from its Generation 12.1 architecture's more modern Vulkan driver implementation and its 2:1 FP16 ratio, which allows faster half-precision shader execution. The Quadro P5000's Pascal architecture, designed for professional OpenGL and CUDA workloads in its 2016 era, appears less optimized for Vulkan's explicit multi-threaded command submission. The result is a clean split: one benchmark win each, with the discrete card winning the compute test by a massive margin and the integrated part winning the modern graphics API test by a solid, if smaller, margin.