Intel HD Graphics P4600 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and the Intel HD Graphics P4600, and it is a decisive victory for the discrete mobile GPU. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2100M scores 4587 points, while the Intel integrated solution manages 3389 points. This translates to a 35.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that indicates a clear performance tier separation. The Quadro’s score of 4587 is not just a win; it is a dominant one, outpacing the Intel chip by nearly a third of its own score. The Intel HD Graphics P4600, by contrast, posts a result that places it firmly in the entry-level segment for compute workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro K2100M’s average benchmark score of 4151 sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part’s average of 3389 lands at the 20th percentile. The percentile gap is small, but the raw score gap is significant, suggesting that the Quadro’s advantage is concentrated in compute tasks where its dedicated hardware shines. The head-to-head delta of 35.3% is the single most telling number: it shows that in OpenCL, the Quadro does not simply edge out the Intel chip, it leaves it in a different performance class. For any workload that leverages OpenCL, the choice is unambiguous.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins the only shared benchmark, which is Geekbench OpenCL. This means the Quadro is the superior option for compute-heavy tasks such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any professional application that offloads parallel math to the graphics processor. The 35.3% lead in OpenCL is precisely the kind of margin that matters in a mobile workstation context, where every bit of compute headroom translates to faster iteration times. The Quadro’s 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the Intel part’s 384.0 GFLOPS, reinforces this dominance: the NVIDIA chip delivers exactly twice the raw floating-point throughput.

The Intel HD Graphics P4600, with zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, does not have a benchmark victory to point to. Its strengths lie elsewhere, not in measurable performance but in integration and system-level simplicity. As an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with a Ring Bus interface, it requires no separate memory and shares the system’s RAM, which eliminates the need for a dedicated VRAM pool. For basic display output, video playback, or light 2D workloads, the P4600 is sufficient, but the data does not show any scenario where it outperforms the Quadro. In terms of raw scores, the Intel part’s best result is 3389 in OpenCL, which is lower than the Quadro’s worst recorded score of 3524 in Geekbench Metal. This means even the Quadro’s weakest benchmark, Metal, beats the Intel chip’s only benchmark by 4%. The verdict is clear: the Quadro wins where performance matters, and the Intel chip wins only in the sense of being a low-power, no-frills integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The chip, codenamed GK106S, is a discrete part with its own memory bus and dedicated VRAM. In contrast, the Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s own fabs. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part, but its architecture is integrated into the Haswell GT2 chip, sharing the CPU die and using the system’s memory as its frame buffer.

The compute resources differ drastically. The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part has only 160 shading units, 20 TMUs, and a meager 2 ROPs. This structural disparity explains the performance gap: the Quadro has 3.6 times the shading units and 2.4 times the TMUs. The ROP count difference is even more stark, with the Quadro offering 8 times the pixel output capability. Pixel rate for the Quadro is 8.004 GPixel/s versus 2.400 GPixel/s for the Intel part, a 3.3-fold advantage. Texture rate is 32.02 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, a smaller but still meaningful lead of 33%.

Memory architecture further separates them. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent, meaning its performance scales with the CPU’s memory speed. The Quadro’s dedicated GDDR5 is a major advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. API support also differs: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro has newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions, which matter for professional CAD and scientific visualization software.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several key differences beyond the compute cores. Clock speeds: the Quadro runs at a flat 667 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, showing a wider dynamic range but a much lower idle speed. The Quadro’s TDP is 55 W, while the Intel part is rated at 84 W, which is surprising given that the Intel is an integrated chip; however, this TDP likely reflects the entire CPU package, not just the graphics portion. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot with a bus interface of MXM-A (3.0), while the Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for the Quadro and Motherboard Dependent for the Intel, reflecting their different form factors.

The Quadro’s production status is End-of-life, as is the Intel’s. Release dates are close: the Quadro launched on 2013-07-22, and the Intel part on 2013-05-31, with Intel being about two months earlier. The Quadro has a clear predecessor and successor in the database: Quadro Fermi-M and Quadro Maxwell-M, respectively. The Intel part has neither. Neither product has a launch MSRP listed, so no pricing information is available from the data. The Quadro’s FP32 throughput is 768.4 GFLOPS, exactly double the Intel’s 384.0 GFLOPS. The Intel part has no listed FP16 capability, nor does the Quadro. The Quadro’s pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s and texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s both exceed the Intel’s figures of 2.400 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s, respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 averages 3389, giving the Quadro a lead of 762 points.

Q: How does the Quadro K2100M compare to the Intel HD Graphics P4600 in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro scores 4587 versus 3389 for the Intel part, a 35.3% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these two chips?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter, based on 2,540 million transistors in a 221 mm² die. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 has no transistor or die size data listed in the database.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 has 160, giving the Quadro a 3.6-fold advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same version of Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.0, a significant version gap.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The Quadro K2100M has a dedicated 128-bit GDDR5 bus with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the superior performer in every measurable way. Its 35.3% lead in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is decisive. Its average benchmark score of 4151 exceeds the Intel part’s 3389 by 22.5%. The Quadro also holds advantages in raw compute specifications, with double the FP32 throughput (768.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS), more than triple the shading units, and a dedicated memory bus with 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics P4600, with zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, cannot claim any performance victory in the database.

Who should pick the Quadro K2100M? Anyone whose workload depends on GPU compute acceleration: mobile workstation users running OpenCL-based engineering tools, scientists doing parallel calculations, or professionals who need a dedicated GPU with its own VRAM. The Quadro’s 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus make it suitable for texture-heavy 3D applications, even at its modest 25th percentile standing among all GPUs. The 55 W TDP and MXM form factor suggest it was designed for laptop integration where performance matters more than power efficiency.

Who should pick the Intel HD Graphics P4600? Only those who need basic display functionality and have no compute requirements. Its 84 W TDP, which likely covers the entire CPU package, and its System Shared memory mean it consumes no extra board space and requires no dedicated memory purchase. For a machine that only outputs to a monitor, runs a browser, or plays video, the P4600 is adequate. But the data shows its 20th percentile ranking and 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance place it in the lowest tier of GPU capability. The verdict is simple: the Quadro wins on every metric that matters for performance, and the Intel part only wins on integration simplicity. Choose the Quadro if you need a GPU that works; choose the Intel if you merely need a display output.