Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and Intel UHD Graphics 710 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum: one is a legacy mobile workstation part, the other a low-end integrated graphics solution. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows that the Quadro K2100M wins both head-to-head tests, but the margin and the context of each win matter for practical decisions. The K2100M leads in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 4587 versus 3496, a 31.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the K2100M scores 4343 against 4088 for the Intel part, a narrower 6.2% edge. These are the only two benchmarks shared between the pair, so the analysis rests entirely on these results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL result is the clearest separation point. The Quadro K2100M’s 4587 score is not just ahead of the UHD Graphics 710’s 3496; it also places the NVIDIA part in a different performance tier. Looking at the nearest rivals for the Quadro, its OpenCL average sits near the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170, -0.4% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, -1% delta), meaning the K2100M is effectively trading blows with those discrete mobile parts. The Intel UHD Graphics 710, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3792 and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823, -0.8% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (3834, -1.1% delta). The 31.2% delta in OpenCL is a decisive win for the Quadro, suggesting that compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL will see a substantial performance gap.

The Vulkan test is closer. The Quadro K2100M scores 4343 versus 4088 for the Intel UHD Graphics 710, a 6.2% difference. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming lead. The Intel part’s Vulkan result of 4088 is actually higher than its OpenCL score (3496), indicating that the Generation 12.2 architecture handles Vulkan more efficiently relative to its own OpenCL performance. The Quadro’s Vulkan score (4343) is slightly below its OpenCL score (4587), showing a more balanced profile across APIs. For gaming or graphics workloads built on Vulkan, the Quadro still wins, but the gap is small enough that other system factors—like CPU performance or memory bandwidth—could narrow the real-world difference.

The overall win count is 2 for the Quadro K2100M and 0 for the Intel UHD Graphics 710. However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story: the Quadro averages 4151 across all its benchmarks, while the Intel part averages 3792. That is a 9.5% difference in aggregate, driven mostly by the OpenCL gap. The percentile rankings are close—the Quadro sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, the Intel at the 22nd—so neither part is breaking any performance records. The Quadro’s wins are real but not transformative; both are entry-level performers by modern standards.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the faster GPU in every benchmark where both were tested. If you have a choice between the two and performance is the only criterion, the Quadro K2100M is the pick. The 31.2% OpenCL advantage is substantial, and even the 6.2% Vulkan lead is a consistent win. The Quadro’s average benchmark score of 4151 also places it above the Intel part’s 3792, reinforcing the conclusion.

That said, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is not without a rationale. The FACT PACK shows it has a much lower TDP: 15 W versus 55 W for the Quadro. For a system where power draw is a hard constraint—like a thin-and-light laptop or a passively cooled mini PC—the Intel part is the only viable option, regardless of performance. The Quadro K2100M is an MXM module, meaning it requires a dedicated slot and likely a larger chassis, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is an IGP integrated into the processor, using system memory. If you are building or buying a system that cannot accommodate a discrete MXM card, the Intel part is the default choice, and the benchmark gap becomes less relevant.

The production status of both parts is "End-of-life," so this is not a decision between current products. The Quadro K2100M was released in 2013, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 in 2022. The Intel part is nearly a decade newer, which explains its better API support—Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175 for the Quadro—even if it loses on raw compute. For legacy software or specific workstation applications that were optimized for Kepler-era NVIDIA drivers, the Quadro may still be the safer bet. For modern, lightweight loads or power-constrained systems, the Intel part is the practical choice despite its lower scores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in raw compute performance. The 31.2% OpenCL lead is the headline number, and it suggests that any workload that scales with shading units, texture units, or FP32 throughput will favor the Quadro. The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the Intel part. The Quadro’s FP32 performance is 768.4 GFLOPS, more than double the Intel’s 332.8 GFLOPS. The Quadro also has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." For compute tasks like OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or data processing, the Quadro is the clear winner.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins in efficiency and integration. The 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro’s 55 W, making it suitable for fanless or low-power designs. The Intel part also has a higher pixel rate (10.40 GPixel/s versus 8.004 GPixel/s) and a higher boost clock (1300 MHz versus 667 MHz). This means that for simple 2D desktop composition, video playback, or light 3D workloads that are fill-rate limited rather than compute limited, the Intel part can be competitive despite its lower overall scores. The Vulkan result—only 6.2% behind—suggests that the Intel architecture is more efficient per FLOP in modern graphics APIs. If your workload is primarily Vulkan-based and you are not pushing compute-heavy shaders, the Intel part’s margin of defeat is small enough that other system advantages (like faster system RAM) could tip the balance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 31.2% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710’s 3496. The Quadro wins this benchmark decisively.

Q: Is the Intel UHD Graphics 710 competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan. The Intel part scores 4088 versus the Quadro’s 4343, a margin of only 6.2%. This is the closest result between the two, and the Intel part’s Vulkan score is also higher than its own OpenCL score.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W. This makes the Intel part substantially more power-efficient, though at the cost of compute performance.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2100M’s average benchmark score of 4151 puts it within 1% of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4170) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). The Intel UHD Graphics 710’s average of 3792 is within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (3834).

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part has the newer API versions.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 48.13 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK106S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses the Generation 12.2 architecture, based on the Alder Lake chip, manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process. The FACT PACK does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part, so no direct comparison is possible there. The Quadro is a discrete GPU with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Intel part is an IGP connected via a Ring Bus.

The shading resources differ sharply: the Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Intel part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro’s texture rate is 32.02 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s for the Intel part. The FP32 throughput is 768.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 332.8 GFLOPS for the Intel part. The Intel part does offer FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which the Quadro does not list. The Quadro’s memory is 2 GB of GDDR5 with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth; the Intel part uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 8.004 GPixel/s, while the Intel part’s is 10.40 GPixel/s, indicating a fill-rate advantage for Intel despite the compute disadvantage.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds differ substantially. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a base and boost clock of 667 MHz, with memory clocked at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The Quadro’s TDP is 55 W, the Intel’s is 15 W. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors; the Intel part is an IGP with no slot width or power connector listed. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro and Ring Bus for the Intel part. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Quadro and "Motherboard Dependent" for the Intel part. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro was released in 2013, the Intel part in 2022. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M; no such lineage is listed for the Intel part. The Quadro has a die size of 221 mm² and a transistor count of 2,540 million; the Intel part lists neither.