Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two mobile graphics solutions is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a clear win for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M. The Quadro 4000M scores 5211, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 trails at 4556. That is a 12.6% deficit for the Intel part, meaning the NVIDIA mobile workstation GPU delivers noticeably higher compute throughput in this particular test.

Looking at the broader database picture, the Quadro 4000M sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5211. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236, which is 0.5% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284, which is 1.4% faster. On the other side, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X trails by 1% at 5161, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 5154, a 1.1% gap. These are tight margins, so the Quadro 4000M is essentially competitive with a cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs from its era, though it is not a standout performer.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, by contrast, occupies the 35th percentile, slightly higher than the Quadro 4000M, with an average benchmark score of 6117. That average is computed across three tests: Geekbench Metal at 7764, Geekbench Vulkan at 6032, and the OpenCL result of 4556. The higher average is driven by the strong Metal and Vulkan scores, which the Quadro 4000M cannot match because it has no recorded Metal or Vulkan results. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6137, which is 0.3% faster, and the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078, which is 0.6% slower. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 6077, 0.7% slower, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is at 6049, a 1.1% gap.

The head-to-head comparison is therefore lopsided in terms of win count: the Quadro 4000M wins the single shared test, giving it one win versus zero for the Intel part. However, that single result does not tell the whole story, because the Intel GPU's average score across all its recorded benchmarks is 17.4% higher than the Quadro's average (6117 versus 5211). The Intel part simply has more benchmark coverage, and in the modern API tests it performs far better than the aging NVIDIA architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the only benchmark where both have results?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5211, versus 4556 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. That is a 12.6% margin in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have any benchmark where it performs strongly?

A: Yes. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 records 7764 in Geekbench Metal and 6032 in Geekbench Vulkan. These are the highest scores in its benchmark set, and they lift its average to 6117, which is above the Quadro 4000M's average of 5211.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel part is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (0.3% slower), the NVIDIA RTX A400 (0.6% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (0.7% faster). The Quadro 4000M is 0.5% slower than the GeForce GTX 760M and 1.4% slower than the GeForce 940M, while beating the Radeon R7 M260X by 1% and the Quadro K3100M by 1.1%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated video memory.

Q: Which GPU has better API support for modern applications?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. In practice, the Intel GPU has broader modern API coverage, especially for Vulkan workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP and comes as an MXM module. The difference is substantial, with the Intel part consuming far less power.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in scenarios that leverage modern graphics APIs. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 and Vulkan score of 6032 indicate strong performance in applications that use these newer interfaces. This makes it suitable for lightweight creative work, media playback, and any workload that can take advantage of Metal on macOS or Vulkan on compatible platforms. The database shows that its average score of 6117 places it in the 35th percentile, which is respectable for an integrated solution.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in the traditional OpenCL compute test, posting 5211 versus 4556. This suggests that for OpenCL-based compute tasks, the dedicated GPU with its own memory subsystem has an edge. The 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth provides a significant advantage in memory bandwidth compared to the Intel part's shared system memory. The Quadro 4000M also has a higher pixel rate, 6.650 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, though the difference is marginal.

The Quadro 4000M also wins on raw texture fill rate per clock efficiency in a different manner: it has 56 texture mapping units versus 48 for the Intel part, but the Intel GPU achieves a much higher texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s. That means the Intel part is far ahead in texture throughput, which matters for certain rendering workloads.

For gaming, the Intel part's higher average benchmark score and modern API support give it an edge in newer titles that use Vulkan or Metal. The Quadro 4000M's higher OpenCL score suggests it may handle compute-heavy applications better, but the lack of Vulkan support limits its future-proofing.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on a 14 nm process by Intel, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process from TSMC. The Quadro has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, with a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Intel GPU has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective speed. The Intel GPU's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width, and bandwidth is system dependent.

The compute units also differ. The Intel GPU has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro has more TMUs and significantly more ROPs.

Performance rates: the Intel GPU achieves 6.600 GPixel/s pixel rate and 52.80 GTexel/s texture rate, with 844.8 GFLOPS FP32. The Quadro 4000M achieves 6.650 GPixel/s pixel rate and 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate, with 638.4 GFLOPS FP32. The Intel part is well ahead in texture rate and FP32, while the Quadro edges out in pixel rate.

Power and physical specifications differ greatly. The Intel GPU has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro 4000M has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, and comes as an MXM Module with no power connectors required. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the Intel part and portable device dependent for the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is based on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture from the HD Graphics (Broadwell) family. It is built on Intel's 14 nm process. The architecture is designed for integrated graphics, sharing system memory and relying on the host CPU's memory controller.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, part of the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. It is built on TSMC's 40 nm process. Fermi was NVIDIA's compute-focused architecture, emphasizing GPGPU performance through features like improved double-precision and ECC support, though the latter is not confirmed for this mobile part.

The Intel architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Fermi architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but lacks Vulkan support entirely. This is a significant generation gap in API coverage.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system shared memory, meaning it dynamically allocates from the system RAM pool. The Quadro has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, providing consistent bandwidth regardless of system memory load.

The transistor count and die size are only recorded for the Quadro: 1,950 million transistors on 332 mm². The Intel part's die details are not in the database. The process node difference, 14 nm versus 40 nm, gives the Intel part a significant efficiency advantage, reflected in the 15 W versus 100 W TDP.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro 4000M was released earlier, with its predecessor being Quadro FX Mobile and successor being Quadro Kepler-M. The Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The database paints a clear picture for different use cases. If the workload relies on OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the stronger choice, posting a 12.6% higher score in the shared benchmark. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth provides stable, high-throughput memory access that integrated graphics cannot match.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the better all-around performer when considering the full benchmark suite. Its average score of 6117, which places it in the 35th percentile, is 17.4% higher than the Quadro's 5211. The Metal score of 7764 and Vulkan score of 6032 show that this integrated GPU is capable in modern API environments, making it more future-proof for current software.

The power difference is stark: 15 W for the Intel part versus 100 W for the NVIDIA part. For mobile systems where battery life and thermals matter, the Intel GPU is far more practical. The Quadro 4000M's 100 W TDP demands a serious cooling solution and a large battery, limiting it to bulky workstation laptops.

For builders and buyers, the decision comes down to the specific application. Users who need OpenCL compute performance and already work in legacy environments should consider the Quadro 4000M. Users who want broader API support, higher average benchmark scores, and dramatically lower power consumption should choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200.

Given that both are end-of-life products, the choice is mostly relevant for legacy systems or compatibility purposes. The Intel part offers better modern API support and higher overall performance in the database's measurements. The Quadro offers dedicated memory and a win in the only direct head-to-head test. The data favors the Intel GPU for general use and modern applications, while the Quadro retains a niche for OpenCL-heavy workflows.