Discussion The difference between Texture2D and Sprite in showing 2D Image

I'm trying to load a local image and apply it to a UI.Image at runtime. The Question is that I can apply both texture2d and sprite to a Image in a similar way.
For texture2d:

Code (CSharp):

1. var bytes = File.ReadAllBytes(imgPath);
2.  
3. var texture = new Texture2D(2, 2);
4. if (texture.LoadImage(buffer)){
5.         image.material.mainTexture = texture;
6. }

For sprite:

Code (CSharp):

1. var bytes = File.ReadAllBytes(imgPath);
2.  
3. var texture = new Texture2D(2, 2);
4. if (texture.LoadImage(buffer)){
5.         var sprite = Sprite.Create(texture, new Rect(0, 0, texture.width, texture.height), new Vector2(0.5f, 0.5f));
6.         image.sprite = sprite;
7. }

Both can achieve loading the task of loading local image, I wonder what is the difference and which way is better.

 

With such a simple setup, the sprite renderer will likely do exactly the same. In the end the GPU always renders based on a material.
Sprites exist due to the convenience features they offer like being 2D animatable (with the package) or used in UI in various ways.