Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and Intel UHD Graphics P750 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they occupy completely different corners of the hardware world. The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot, 152 W professional workstation card from 2011 built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, while the P750 is a 15 W integrated GPU embedded in Intel’s Rocket Lake processors. Benchmark data shows the Quadro 5000 holds a clear performance edge, but the P750 brings modern API support and a drastically lower power footprint. The choice between them depends entirely on whether you need raw compute throughput or platform integration and efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins the only benchmark data point available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 5000 scores 7289, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6554. That is an 11.2% advantage for the Quadro 5000, and it reflects the fundamental difference between a dedicated discrete GPU with its own memory and an integrated solution sharing system resources. The Quadro 5000 also sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the P750’s 38th percentile, reinforcing that it is the stronger compute performer overall.

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins in power efficiency and platform simplicity. Its TDP is 15 W compared to the Quadro 5000’s 152 W — a tenfold difference. It is an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width, meaning it requires no additional cooling or power delivery. The P750 also supports newer graphics APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. For systems where power draw and physical space are the primary constraints, the P750 is the practical choice, even if it loses the compute benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11.2% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P750’s 6554.

Q: How does the Quadro 5000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 5000 is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE, and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector plus a 450 W suggested PSU. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a TDP of 15 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU requirement.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics P750 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the P750 lists Vulkan 1.4 support. The Quadro 5000 does not list any Vulkan version in its specifications.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The P750 uses System Shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the Quadro 5000’s 11.29 GPixel/s, despite the Quadro winning the overall OpenCL benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289, beating the Intel UHD Graphics P750’s 6554 by 11.2%. This margin is meaningful in the context of their nearest rivals. The Quadro 5000’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, scores 7222, which puts the Quadro just 0.9% ahead. The P750’s closest competitor, the AMD Radeon HD 7730M, scores 6581, meaning the P750 is actually 0.4% behind that rival. So while the Quadro 5000 wins the head-to-head, it is not a dominant performer in absolute terms — its edge is modest, and the P750 is similarly competitive within its own tier.

However, the benchmark does not tell the whole story. The Quadro 5000’s FP32 compute is 722.3 GFLOPS, while the P750 is rated at 665.6 GFLOPS. That is a 8.5% difference in raw floating-point throughput, which aligns closely with the observed OpenCL delta. But the P750 has a much higher texture rate: 83.20 GTexel/s versus the Quadro 5000’s 22.57 GTexel/s. The P750 also has a higher pixel rate at 41.60 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s. These numbers suggest that while the Quadro 5000 wins in general compute workloads, the P750 has architectural advantages in fill-rate-bound tasks, even if those advantages do not show up in the single OpenCL benchmark available.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 320-bit bus and 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, clocked at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The P750 uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. This means the Quadro 5000 has dedicated, predictable memory performance, while the P750’s performance depends entirely on the host system’s RAM and memory configuration.

The compute resources also differ. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The P750 has 256 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. So the Quadro has more shaders and more ROPs, but the P750 has more texture mapping units. The clock behavior is another distinction: the Quadro 5000 has no listed base or boost clock, while the P750 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz.

Physical specifications diverge sharply. The Quadro 5000 is a 248 mm long, 111 mm tall dual-slot card that requires a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W PSU. The P750 is an integrated GPU with no physical dimensions, no slot width, and no power connectors. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16 as its bus interface, while the P750 connects via Ring Bus. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the P750 is motherboard dependent.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies and eras. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². It was released on February 22, 2011, as part of the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation, succeeding the Quadro FX Tesla line and preceding the Quadro Kepler series. Its launch MSRP was 2,499 USD.

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is built on Intel’s Generation 12.1 architecture, using the Rocket Lake chip, fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process. It is part of the HD Graphics-W (Rocket Lake) generation. No transistor count, die size, or release date is listed in the data. The P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but lists no Vulkan support. The P750 also has a listed FP16 performance of 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro 5000 does not provide.

The power envelope is the starkest architectural divide. The Quadro 5000 is a 152 W discrete card with a 3,100 million transistor GPU on a large die. The P750 is a 15 W integrated solution with no separate die information. This is not just a difference in efficiency — it represents two different approaches to graphics: dedicated high-throughput hardware versus integrated, power-conscious silicon.

The Verdict

If raw compute performance is the only criterion, the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the clear choice. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark by 11.2%, has higher FP32 throughput at 722.3 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS, and sits at a higher percentile (40th vs 38th) among all GPUs. It also offers dedicated 2.5 GB GDDR5 memory with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is a significant advantage for workloads that cannot tolerate system memory contention.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the sensible pick for a different set of requirements. Its 15 W TDP means it can run in systems where a 152 W card would be impossible. It has no power connector, no PSU requirement, and no slot footprint, making it ideal for compact or low-power builds. Its modern API support — DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 — gives it a compatibility edge for newer software, even if its raw performance is lower. The P750 also has substantially higher pixel and texture rates (41.60 GPixel/s and 83.20 GTexel/s vs 11.29 and 22.57), which could matter in specific fill-rate-bound applications.

The data does not support a universal winner. The Quadro 5000 is for anyone who needs maximum OpenCL compute and dedicated video memory, accepting the power draw and physical size. The P750 is for anyone building an efficient, integrated system where the GPU must coexist with the CPU on a ring bus and draw minimal power. Choose based on your workload’s bottleneck: compute throughput favors the Quadro, while system integration and API modernity favor the P750.