GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and Intel HD Graphics P4600 represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing, separated by a generation and a world of design philosophy. The data shows the Quadro 3000M, a discrete mobile workstation part from the Fermi era, holds a clear performance edge over the integrated Haswell GT2 solution. However, a closer look reveals that the P4600 delivers a surprisingly competitive score despite its drastically different architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is faster, scoring 3,718 points compared to the Intel HD Graphics P4600's 3,389 points. This represents a 9.7% lead for the NVIDIA part in this specific test.

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

A: The Quadro 3000M sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3,717 (a 0% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770, which scores 3,649 (a 1.9% delta for the Quadro). The Intel P4600 is slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, which scores 3,431 (a -1.2% delta for Intel), but ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 530, which scores 3,332 (a 1.7% delta for the P4600).

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two?

A: The Quadro 3000M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture using a 40 nm process at TSMC, featuring a discrete 2 GB GDDR5 memory pool with a 256-bit bus. The P4600 is Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture on a 22 nm process, using system shared memory and a Ring Bus interface.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a significantly higher pixel rate at 4.500 GPixel/s. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 only manages 2.400 GPixel/s, less than half the NVIDIA part's throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which means it supports the DirectX 12 API but at the 11_0 feature level. The Intel P4600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a slightly higher feature level.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a higher TDP of 84 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is rated at 75 W. This is notable because the Intel part is an integrated GPU, while the NVIDIA part is a discrete MXM module.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their fundamental design. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, a derivative of the Fermi architecture manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 1,950 million transistors into a die size of 332 mm², yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². This is a large, complex discrete GPU designed for mobile workstations, and it communicates via an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

In contrast, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is built on the Haswell GT2 die using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture. It is manufactured on a more advanced 22 nm process at Intel's own fabs. The transistor count and die size are not specified in the data, but the design philosophy is clear: it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that shares system memory via a Ring Bus interface. This makes it a fundamentally different solution, one that is embedded within a larger processor package.

The memory subsystems are drastically different. The Quadro 3000M features a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a professional-grade memory pool with high throughput. The P4600 relies on "System Shared" memory, meaning it uses a portion of the system's main RAM. Consequently, its bandwidth is "System Dependent" and cannot be quoted as a fixed number.

The compute resources also differ. The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The Intel P4600 has 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 2 ROPs. This large disparity in ROPs explains the massive difference in pixel fill rate, as the ROPs are responsible for final pixel output. The NVIDIA part also has higher raw compute throughput, with 432.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part. Interestingly, the Intel part has a higher texture rate at 24.00 GTexel/s compared to 18.00 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only benchmark provided is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a clear win for the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M. The NVIDIA part scores 3,718 points, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3,389 points. This gives the Quadro 3000M a 9.7% advantage in this compute-oriented test. This is a significant margin, indicating that the discrete GPU is substantially better at general-purpose compute tasks.

This result is consistent with the raw specifications. The Quadro 3000M's higher FP32 throughput (432.0 GFLOPS) and superior memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s) give it a strong theoretical foundation for OpenCL workloads. The Intel part, with its 384.0 GFLOPS and system-dependent bandwidth, cannot match that level of sustained compute performance.

However, the Intel part's score of 3,389 is not embarrassing. Relative to its peers, it performs well. It is only 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (which scores 3,431) and 2.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (which scores 3,316). This places it in a competitive position among lower-end GPUs. Meanwhile, the Quadro 3000M's score of 3,718 puts it in a tie with the GeForce GT 740M (3,717) and slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3,649). The performance gap between the two reviewed parts is not enormous, but it is consistent and measurable.

The data shows a single benchmark, but the implications are clear. For any workload that can leverage OpenCL, the Quadro 3000M is the stronger performer. The delta of 9.7% is a substantial margin that would be noticeable in real-world compute tasks.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is the faster GPU. Its 9.7% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark is backed by superior hardware specifications, including a higher pixel rate (4.500 GPixel/s vs 2.400 GPixel/s), more shading units (240 vs 160), and a dedicated high-bandwidth memory interface (80.00 GB/s vs system shared).

This makes the Quadro 3000M the clear choice for users who need the maximum compute performance from their mobile workstation. Its design as a discrete MXM module with its own 2 GB GDDR5 memory pool means it does not drain system memory or compete with the CPU for bandwidth. The data suggests it is the more capable solution for professional applications that demand consistent, high-throughput compute.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, on the other hand, should be considered by those who value efficiency and integration. While it has a higher TDP (84 W) than the Quadro 3000M (75 W), this is a measure of system power draw for the entire integrated graphics solution. Its performance of 3,389 points, while behind the NVIDIA part, is still respectable. It beats the Intel HD Graphics 530 by 1.7% and is only narrowly behind the GeForce GT 740. For a user who needs a basic, built-in graphics solution without the complexity of a discrete module, the P4600 is a capable option.

The decision hinges on the user's needs. If the priority is raw performance in compute-heavy tasks, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is the winner. If the priority is a simple, integrated solution that offers decent performance without requiring a dedicated memory pool, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is adequate. The benchmark data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA part for performance, but the Intel part offers a viable alternative for less demanding environments.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | Intel HD Graphics P4600 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Fermi | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | Not specified |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 240 | 160 |

| TMUs | 40 | 20 |

| ROPs | 32 | 2 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.500 GPixel/s | 2.400 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 18.00 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 432.0 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 84 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan Support | Not specified | 1.0 |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |