Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M represent two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics from the same era, with the former being an integrated solution from Intel and the latter a dedicated professional-grade module from NVIDIA. The data available for direct comparison is limited to a single shared benchmark, but that one data point, along with the broader benchmark landscape and architectural specifications, reveals a clear performance hierarchy and distinct use-case suitability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result in the dataset is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M achieved a score of 5986, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scored 4556. This represents a 23.9% advantage for the NVIDIA solution. The delta is substantial, indicating that the Quadro K4000M delivers a significantly higher level of raw compute throughput in this particular workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive lead that points to the Quadro's superior parallel processing capabilities.

However, this single head-to-head result does not tell the entire story. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has additional benchmark scores for Geekbench Metal (7764) and Geekbench Vulkan (6032), tests which the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M does not have data for. While these cannot be directly compared, they are informative for understanding the Iris Pro's overall performance profile. Its average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 6117, which is actually higher than the Quadro K4000M's average score of 5986. This is a curious inversion: the Intel part wins on its average, but loses the one test where they go head-to-head.

This suggests that the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has particular strengths in certain API environments, notably Metal and Vulkan, where its scores are very strong. The OpenCL result, where it loses to the Quadro, may not be its optimal workload. The data implies that the Intel GPU's performance is highly API-dependent, while the NVIDIA part's single recorded score shows consistent, if not spectacular, performance in OpenCL.

The deltaPct figures from the nearest rivals further contextualize these scores. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's average score of 6117 places it just 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137) and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078). This indicates that despite its integrated nature, the Iris Pro is competitive with entry-level dedicated GPUs. Conversely, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M's average score of 5986 puts it in a virtual tie with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987) and just 0.1% behind its own desktop sibling, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982). The data shows a tight cluster of performance around the 6000-point mark, with the Intel part slightly above and the NVIDIA part slightly below that line in their respective averages.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the clear winner in the OpenCL compute workload, which is a common and important metric for professional applications like CAD, simulation, and rendering. Its 23.9% lead over the Iris Pro in this specific test is the most significant performance gap in the entire dataset. This makes it the better choice for tasks that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, however, shows its winning potential in other API environments. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 6032 and particularly its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 are far higher than its OpenCL score. While there is no direct comparison available, these scores suggest that in modern, low-level API workloads, the Iris Pro is exceptionally capable. The 7764 Metal score is significantly above the average score of the Quadro K4000M, implying that in a Metal-based workload, the Intel part would likely outperform the NVIDIA part by a wide margin.

Therefore, the use-case split is clear. For traditional professional compute via OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins. For scenarios leveraging Apple's Metal API or Vulkan, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 demonstrates superior performance, at least based on its own benchmark scores. The Intel part's performance is more versatile across APIs, while the NVIDIA part appears to be a specialized OpenCL workhorse.

The data also shows a difference in raw specification limits. The Quadro K4000M has a higher theoretical texture rate (48.08 GTexel/s vs 52.80 GTexel/s for Intel, wait, Intel is actually higher here) and pixel rate (12.02 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s for Intel). This indicates that the NVIDIA part has a significant advantage in fill-rate-bound tasks, such as traditional rasterization at high resolutions. The Intel part's higher texture rate, however, is an interesting anomaly that may benefit certain types of texturing workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on vastly different architectures and process technologies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is based on the "Broadwell GT3e" chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture on a 14nm process node. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) that shares system memory, with its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means its performance is heavily reliant on the speed of the host system's RAM and memory controller.

In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is a dedicated mobile workstation GPU built on the "GK104" chip, using the Kepler architecture. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 28nm process node. Crucially, it has its own dedicated memory: 4GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is a massive advantage, as it does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth and has much lower latency than system memory.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This disparity in ROPs (6 vs 32) explains the massive difference in pixel rate (6.600 GPixel/s vs 12.02 GPixel/s) and is a key architectural reason why the Quadro is better suited for high-resolution rendering. The Quadro also has nearly three times the shading units, which contributes to its higher FP32 performance of 1,153.9 GFLOPS compared to the Intel's 844.8 GFLOPS.

The power envelopes are also worlds apart. The Intel Iris Pro has a TDP of 15W, making it an extremely power-efficient part designed for thin-and-light laptops. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, on the other hand, has a TDP of 100W and is an MXM Module, a larger, more power-hungry component designed for larger mobile workstations. This power difference is directly tied to the performance difference: the Quadro has the power budget to sustain much higher clock speeds and feed its larger array of cores.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the more powerful GPU in raw compute and traditional graphics throughput. Its 23.9% lead in OpenCL, combined with its dedicated 4GB of GDDR5 memory and higher pixel rate, makes it the superior choice for professional workstations running OpenCL-accelerated software. Its higher FP32 performance and ROP count suggest it will handle complex 3D modeling and rendering tasks more effectively.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, however, is not without its merits. Its average benchmark score is higher than the Quadro's, driven by exceptional results in Metal and Vulkan. This makes it an interesting option for tasks that leverage these modern APIs, potentially offering better performance in those specific environments despite its integrated nature and much lower power draw. It is also a far more power-efficient solution, with a TDP of just 15W compared to 100W.

Users who need maximum compute performance for professional applications and have a system that can accommodate an MXM module should choose the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. Users who prioritize power efficiency, operate within the constraints of an integrated GPU, and work primarily with Vulkan or Metal APIs may find the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 to be the more suitable, and potentially faster, option in those specific workloads.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is faster, scoring 5986 compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556, a 23.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 have any benchmark wins over the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M?

A: The Intel part has a higher average benchmark score of 6117 across all tests, compared to the NVIDIA's 5986. However, the only direct head-to-head benchmark shows the NVIDIA part winning.

Q: What is the key difference in memory architecture between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a dedicated 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 relies on System Shared memory, making its performance system-dependent.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a TDP of 15W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100W, reflecting its status as a high-performance mobile workstation component.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in their current production status?

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life products. The Intel part was released in 2014, while the NVIDIA part was released in 2012.

Q: What API versions do they support?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |

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

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | GK104 |

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 960 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 6 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

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

| OpenGL Version | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.0 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2012-05-31 |