Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and the Intel HD Graphics P4600: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are decisive. The GT 755M scores 4934 points, while the P4600 manages 3389 points. That is a delta of 45.6 percent in favor of the NVIDIA part. In practical terms, the GT 755M delivers nearly half again as much compute throughput in this workload. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute benchmark, so this gap reflects raw shader and memory subsystem capability rather than gaming-specific optimization.

Looking at the broader database context, the GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4033 across its recorded tests. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013, a mere 0.5 percent behind, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 4075, which is 1 percent ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB scores 4093, 1.5 percent higher. This places the GT 755M in a crowded mid-low tier, where small percentage swings separate neighbors. The P4600, by contrast, sits at the 20th percentile, with a single recorded score of 3389. Its rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 at 3431 (1.2 percent ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M at 3434 (1.3 percent ahead), the Intel HD Graphics 530 at 3332 (1.7 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M at 3316 (2.2 percent behind). The P4600 is not far off these parts, but the GT 755M is in an entirely different performance class.

The single head-to-head result tells the story: the GT 755M wins the only shared benchmark. There are no tests where the P4600 comes out ahead in direct comparison. This is a one-sided matchup in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturers, built on different processes, with fundamentally different designs. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip, built on Kepler architecture, at TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million transistors per mm². The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Haswell GT2 chip, belonging to Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel. The database lists no transistor count, die size, or density for the Intel part, so a direct comparison on those metrics is not possible from the recorded data.

The compute resources differ substantially. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P4600 has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 2 ROPs. The pixel rate reflects this: the GT 755M achieves 8.160 GPixel/s, while the P4600 achieves 2.400 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, 32.64 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, but still in NVIDIA's favor. FP32 compute is a clear win for the GT 755M at 783.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the P4600. The P4600 has less than half the shading units and less than half the FP32 throughput.

Clocks and memory also diverge sharply. The GT 755M runs at a base clock of 980 MHz with a boost of 1020 MHz, and its GDDR5 memory runs at 1350 MHz, translating to 5.4 Gbps effective, across a 128 bit bus. That yields a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s. The P4600 has a base clock of only 350 MHz, boosting to 1200 MHz, with system shared memory whose bandwidth is system dependent. The GT 755M has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer; the P4600 relies on shared system memory, which is typically slower and contended with the CPU.

Process technology favors Intel in transistor size: 22 nm versus 28 nm. However, the GT 755M's dedicated memory and higher clock speeds compensate in raw performance. The API support also differs. The GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P4600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part has a more recent OpenGL and Vulkan version, while Intel only leads on the DirectX 11_1 feature level.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins in every measurable category. The only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to the GT 755M by 45.6 percent. The specifications also favor the GT 755M in raw throughput: higher FP32 GFLOPS, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, more shading units, more ROPs, and dedicated high-speed memory. The GT 755M is clearly the part to choose for compute-heavy tasks, gaming, or any workload that depends on the GPU's parallel processing power.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has no recorded benchmark wins over the GT 755M. Its advantages lie elsewhere: it is a integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into the CPU, requiring no separate MXM module, and its memory is system shared, which allows it to use the system RAM directly, but the bandwidth is system dependent. The P4600 also has a lower base clock of 350 MHz, which draws less power at idle, but its TDP of 84 W is higher than the GT 755M's 50 W. That is not a win; it is a spec difference that suggests the P4600 is not inherently more efficient in the measured data.

The GT 755M's percentile ranking (24th) is higher than the P4600's (20th), and its average score (4033) is higher than the P4600's (3389). In the database, the GT 755M belongs to a tier where integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics 630 are direct rivals, whereas the P4600 sits with older mobile and low-end desktop parts. The only use case where the P4600 might be preferable is if the user is forced to rely on integrated graphics with no discrete GPU slot, but even then the measured performance is lower.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. Any user comparing these two parts on the basis of recorded benchmarks must choose the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. It wins the only head-to-head test by a huge margin, it has a higher average score across its benchmark suite, it has more shading units, more ROPs, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, higher FP32, and it has dedicated GDDR5 memory. The P4600 is a low-power integrated part designed for basic display output and light compute, and the recorded 3389 OpenCL score confirms that.

The GT 755M is also end-of-life, as is the P4600, so neither is a future candidate. But within the data, the GT 755M offers 45.6 percent more OpenCL performance. The P4600's only advantage is its integrated nature, which requires no separate module, but that does not translate into any measured performance win. The verdict is straightforward: the GT 755M is the stronger GPU. The P4600 is simply outclassed in every metric that matters for compute.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL between the GT 755M and the P4600?

A: The GT 755M scores 4934, while the P4600 scores 3389. The GT 755M is 45.6 percent faster in this benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 755M has 384 shading units, while the P4600 has only 160.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the P4600?

A: The P4600 uses system shared memory, with a bus width and bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each?

A: The GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS, while the P4600 delivers 384.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The GT 755M has a pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, compared to the P4600's 2.400 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The GT 755M averages 4033 across its tests, while the P4600 averages 3389.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M | Intel HD Graphics P4600 |

|-------|------------------------|--------------------------|

| Chip | GK107 | Haswell GT2 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 7.5 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | HD Graphics-W (Haswell) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | Not listed |

| Transistor Density | 10.8M / mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 980 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1020 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 160 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 2 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.160 GPixel/s | 2.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.64 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 783.4 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 84 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2013-06-24 | 2013-05-31 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Not listed |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Not listed |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 24 | 20 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4033 | 3389 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4934 | 3389 |