Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear split: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 dominates in Metal performance, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 leads in OpenCL and Vulkan. The average scores are close, with the Intel part averaging 6,117 points against the Quadro’s 5,982, but the workload-specific results tell a more nuanced story. This comparison pits a 14 nm integrated GPU from 2014 against a 28 nm discrete workstation card from 2013, and the data shows that age and architecture matter more than the raw specification sheet suggests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, with an average score of 6,117 points, edges out the NVIDIA Quadro K4000’s 5,982 points. The margin is roughly 2.3%, placing both in the same performance tier.

Q: How do the two compare in the Metal benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins decisively, scoring 7,764 versus the Quadro K4000’s 4,166. That is an 86.4% advantage for the Intel part, which is the largest single-test margin in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins both. It scores 6,816 in OpenCL against Intel’s 4,556 (a 33.2% lead), and 6,964 in Vulkan against Intel’s 6,032 (a 13.4% lead).

Q: What are the architecture nodes for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on a 14 nm process by Intel, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses a 28 nm process fabricated by TSMC. The Intel chip is a Broadwell GT3e part, and the NVIDIA chip is GK106 based on Kepler.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000?

A: The launch MSRP for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is 1,269 USD. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel’s Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a 14 nm integrated part from the Broadwell generation, built on Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture. It features 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 6 raster output pipelines. Its memory interface is entirely system-shared, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM; bandwidth is listed as system-dependent. The chip runs at a base clock of 300 MHz with a boost clock of 1,100 MHz, drawing just 15 W of power.

NVIDIA’s Quadro K4000 is a discrete workstation card built on the 28 nm Kepler architecture using the GK106 chip, manufactured by TSMC. It has double the shading units at 768, along with 64 TMUs and 24 ROPs. Unlike the Intel part’s shared memory, the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with a fixed 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is listed at 1,404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective speed. The Quadro K4000 has a 80 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The transistor counts differ massively. The Quadro K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, yielding a density of 11.5M / mm². The Intel part’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. The Intel GPU uses a Ring Bus interface and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), while the Quadro K4000 is a single-slot card using PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also diverge: Intel’s are motherboard-dependent, whereas the Quadro K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows a generational split. Intel supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. NVIDIA’s Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part has a higher DirectX feature level, but NVIDIA leads in OpenGL and Vulkan versions. Both are end-of-life products, with Intel releasing in September 2014 and NVIDIA in February 2013.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: pick the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 for Metal-centric or compute-light tasks, and pick the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 for OpenCL, Vulkan, or dedicated-memory workloads. The Intel part wins only one of three head-to-head benchmark tests, but that win is massive — 86.4% ahead in Metal. The Quadro K4000 wins two tests, with leads of 33.2% in OpenCL and 13.4% in Vulkan.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 6,117 for Intel versus 5,982 for NVIDIA — which places both in the 34th-35th percentile of all GPUs. However, the underlying workload profiles are starkly different. The Intel part’s advantage in Metal suggests it is better suited for Apple-ecosystem or Metal-accelerated applications, while the Quadro K4000’s OpenCL and Vulkan wins make it the stronger choice for cross-platform compute and modern graphics APIs.

The Quadro K4000’s dedicated 3 GB GDDR5 memory with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth is a significant practical advantage over the Intel part’s system-shared memory, which is system-dependent. For workloads that stress memory bandwidth, the Quadro K4000’s fixed 134.8 GB/s is a concrete specification advantage. The Intel part’s 15 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 80 W TDP also matters for system integration, though that is a design consideration rather than a performance metric.

In terms of nearest rivals, both GPUs sit in a crowded mid-pack. The Intel part is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8690M and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A400. The Quadro K4000 is 0.1% behind the Quadro K4000M and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M. The data suggests neither GPU has a meaningful edge over its immediate competition.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification field. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a 14 nm part, while the Quadro K4000 is 28 nm. Intel’s chip is Broadwell GT3e with Generation 8.0 architecture; NVIDIA’s is GK106 with Kepler architecture. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs.

Clock speeds are not directly comparable. Intel lists a 300 MHz base and 1,100 MHz boost. NVIDIA lists no base or boost clock, but its memory clock is 1,404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective speed. The memory configurations are entirely different: Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Pixel and texture rates favor different aspects. Intel has a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s. NVIDIA has a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 51.84 GTexel/s. NVIDIA wins pixel throughput by a large margin, while Intel barely edges out texture rate. FP32 compute is 844.8 GFLOPS for Intel versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 47.3% advantage for the Quadro.

Power and physical attributes differ substantially. Intel has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. NVIDIA has an 80 W TDP, is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro K4000 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for Intel, while NVIDIA offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The production status is end-of-life for both, but release dates differ: Intel launched September 2014, NVIDIA launched February 2013. The Quadro K4000 has a listed predecessor (Quadro Fermi) and successor (Quadro Maxwell), while the Intel part has none listed. The Quadro K4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the Intel part has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the data is the Metal benchmark. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 7,764, which is 86.4% higher than the Quadro K4000’s 4,166. This is the single largest delta in the comparison, and it is a massive win for the Intel part. It suggests that Metal-accelerated workloads are heavily biased toward the Intel GPU’s architecture, despite its lower raw compute figures.

The OpenCL benchmark flips the script. The Quadro K4000 scores 6,816 against Intel’s 4,556, a 33.2% lead for NVIDIA. This is a substantial margin that aligns with the Quadro’s higher FP32 throughput of 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus Intel’s 844.8 GFLOPS. The Quadro’s dedicated memory and higher ROP count likely contribute to this result.

The Vulkan benchmark is closer but still favors NVIDIA. The Quadro K4000 scores 6,964, while the Intel part scores 6,032, giving NVIDIA a 13.4% edge. This is a narrower margin than OpenCL, but it still represents a clean win for the Quadro in modern graphics API workloads. The Intel part’s Vulkan 1.0 support versus NVIDIA’s Vulkan 1.2.175 may be a factor.

The wins tally is 1-2 in favor of NVIDIA, but the magnitude of Intel’s Metal win outweighs the average score delta. Intel’s average benchmark score of 6,117 is 2.3% higher than NVIDIA’s 5,982, driven entirely by the Metal outlier. Without Metal, the Quadro K4000 would be the clear average leader.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in Metal-accelerated environments. The 86.4% lead in the Metal benchmark is not a marginal advantage; it is a dominant performance gap. This makes the Intel part the better choice for applications that rely on Apple’s Metal API, whether for graphics rendering or compute tasks. The Intel part also matches or slightly exceeds the Quadro K4000 in texture rate, with 52.80 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s, though this is a negligible 1.9% difference.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The 33.2% OpenCL lead and 13.4% Vulkan lead are both significant, and they are consistent with the Quadro’s hardware advantages: 768 shading units versus 384, 24 ROPs versus 6, and 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS. The Quadro’s dedicated 3 GB GDDR5 memory with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a structural advantage in memory-bound tasks, whereas the Intel part’s system-dependent bandwidth is unpredictable.

For pixel-heavy workloads, the Quadro K4000 is the clear winner with a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 6.600 GPixel/s. This is nearly double the pixel throughput, making the Quadro better suited for high-resolution rasterization. The Quadro also has a higher FP32 compute rating, which aligns with its OpenCL victory.

The Intel part wins on power efficiency and integration. At 15 W versus 80 W, the Intel GPU consumes a fraction of the power and requires no additional power connectors or PSU headroom. For systems where power draw is a constraint, the Intel part is the only rational choice. However, for users who need dedicated VRAM, modern API support, or raw compute throughput, the Quadro K4000’s data-backed wins in OpenCL and Vulkan make it the stronger performer.