Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M Comparison

The benchmark data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M over the Intel HD Graphics P4600. In the sole available benchmark, the GeForce GT 635M scores 3740 points against the Intel part's 3389 points, a lead of 10.4%. This places the NVIDIA GPU at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel solution sits slightly behind at the 20th percentile. The performance gap is consistent with their positions relative to similar hardware, where the GT 635M edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718) and GT 740M (3717) by 0.6%, while the HD Graphics P4600 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431) by 1.2%.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M wins in raw compute performance, as demonstrated by its higher Geekbench OpenCL score. This makes it the preferable option for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications or older game workloads that rely on shader throughput. Its 10.4% advantage in the head-to-head benchmark indicates it delivers more processing power per operation.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, despite losing the compute benchmark, offers a different set of advantages rooted in its platform integration. It features a higher boost clock of 1200 MHz compared to the GT 635M's fixed 900 MHz memory clock (though these are not directly comparable), and it has a significantly higher texture fill rate of 24.00 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. This suggests that in scenarios heavily dependent on texture fetching, the Intel part could theoretically perform better, though the benchmark data does not confirm this. Its win condition is not in the provided benchmark but in its architectural efficiency and system-level integration.

The single benchmark result is the only quantitative comparison available, and it firmly favors NVIDIA. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 does not win any of the head-to-head tests. Therefore, for any workload measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M is the definitive winner. The Intel part's strengths are qualitative, such as its 22 nm process node and support for the Vulkan API, which are not reflected in the score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.4% higher than the Intel HD Graphics P4600's score of 3389.

Q: How does the GT 635M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.6% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717), and 1.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694). It is 1.4% slower than the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792).

Q: What is the performance context for the HD Graphics P4600?

A: Its score of 3389 places it 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431) and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434). It is 1.7% faster than the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) and 2.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316).

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M has 96. Despite fewer units, the NVIDIA part achieves a higher benchmark score.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M supports version 12 (11_0), while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 supports version 12 (11_1).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a pixel rate of 2.400 GPixel/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M's 1.900 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark test is Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M wins decisively. It scores 3740 points, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389 points. This represents a delta of 10.4% in favor of NVIDIA. This is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that the GT 635M can process parallel tasks more efficiently.

The margin of 351 points is significant when viewed against the rival landscape. For the GT 635M, a 10.4% advantage is larger than its lead over any of its nearest rivals, which top out at 1.2% over the GeForce 825M. Conversely, for the HD Graphics P4600, the 10.4% deficit is far steeper than its 2.2% lead over the GeForce GT 730M or its 1.7% lead over the HD Graphics 530. This suggests the GT 635M is not just marginally better but occupies a distinctly higher performance tier in this specific test.

The benchmark results show a consistent pattern: the GT 635M's absolute score of 3740 is higher than the P4600's 3389, and its percentile ranking (22nd vs 20th) confirms this. The NVIDIA part also benefits from a higher average benchmark score of 3740, which is the same as its single test score, indicating no variance. The Intel part's average is also its single score at 3389. This single data point is the definitive measure of their compute performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in their memory and clock specifications. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M has a dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent" and its bus width is also "System Shared". This is a fundamental difference: dedicated versus shared memory.

Clock speeds also differ. The GT 635M lists a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the P4600 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The NVIDIA part does not list a base or boost clock, and the Intel part does not list a dedicated memory clock. The shading unit count differs, with the Intel part having 160 versus the NVIDIA's 96. The texture mapping units (TMUs) also differ: 20 on the Intel part versus 16 on the NVIDIA.

The compute rates are starkly different. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has an FP32 performance of 384.0 GFLOPS, which is more than double the NVIDIA's 182.4 GFLOPS. The texture rate is also higher on the Intel part at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. However, the NVIDIA part has a higher pixel rate of 1.900 GPixel/s compared to the Intel's 2.400 GPixel/s, which is actually lower. The TDP differs, with the Intel part rated at 84 W and the NVIDIA at 35 W. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA and Ring Bus for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M is based on the GF108 chip using the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It contains 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.0M / mm². It belongs to the GeForce 600M generation.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Haswell GT2 chip, built on the Generation 7.5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 22 nm process at Intel. Its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. It belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Haswell) generation.

In terms of API support, the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but does not list Vulkan support. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Intel part has a more modern process node (22 nm vs 40 nm) and supports a newer DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0). The NVIDIA part has a higher OpenGL version. The NVIDIA GPU uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the Intel GPU uses a Ring Bus, reflecting its integrated nature. The GT 635M has a dedicated 2 GB memory pool, while the P4600 relies on system memory. The GT 635M is also noted as an End-of-life product released on 2012-03-21, while the P4600 is also End-of-life, released later on 2013-05-31.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear verdict toward the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M for tasks involving compute performance. Its 10.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark is the only quantitative measure of performance, and it wins decisively. Users running OpenCL-accelerated applications or older games that rely on this type of compute should choose the GT 635M.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, however, is not without merit. Its higher FP32 throughput (384.0 GFLOPS) and texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s) suggest it has raw capabilities that are not reflected in the benchmark. Its support for Vulkan 1.0 and a newer DirectX feature level (11_1) make it more forward-compatible with modern APIs. The P4600 also has a higher pixel rate (2.400 GPixel/s) than the GT 635M (1.900 GPixel/s).

For the user, the choice depends on the priority. If the sole metric is the provided benchmark score, the GT 635M is superior. If the priority is architectural modernity, API support, and higher theoretical fill rates, the P4600 is the better choice. The GT 635M's dedicated memory is a significant advantage for consistency, while the P4600's shared memory is system-dependent. The GT 635M is the winner in the measured test, but the P4600 offers a different set of strengths that may appeal to specific use cases. The data shows a 10.4% performance gap, but it also shows a 22 nm process versus a 40 nm one, and Vulkan support on the Intel part. The verdict is NVIDIA for raw compute, Intel for platform integration and modern API support.