Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 are two end-of-life graphics solutions from 2014 that took completely different paths to similar performance. The K620 is a discrete, single-slot workstation card built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the Iris Pro 6200 is a 15 W integrated GPU embedded in Intel’s Broadwell processors. Their average benchmark scores are remarkably close: the Quadro K620 sits at 6282, and the Iris Pro 6200 lands at 6117, a gap of just 2.7%. Both sit in the 35th–36th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are entry-level parts by modern standards. However, the data reveals a split: the K620 wins decisively in OpenCL compute, while the Iris Pro takes a narrow victory in Vulkan. The choice between them hinges on your workload and platform constraints, not on raw performance dominance.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K620 if you need a dedicated, low-profile card for professional compute tasks in an older workstation. Its OpenCL score of 6693 is 46.9% higher than the Iris Pro’s 4556, making it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated applications that rely on OpenCL. It also offers a 128-bit memory bus with 28.80 GB/s of dedicated DDR3 bandwidth, a 160 mm single-slot design, and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, making it straightforward to install in any desktop with a free slot. The K620’s 45 W TDP is higher than the Iris Pro’s 15 W, but it still requires no power connectors and only a 200 W suggested PSU, so it fits into modest systems.

Pick the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 if you are building or upgrading a compact, low-power system and want to avoid a discrete card entirely. It wins the Vulkan benchmark with 6032 versus the K620’s 5870, a 2.7% margin, and it delivers a much higher texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s thanks to its 48 TMUs. As an IGP, it uses system shared memory and draws only 15 W, which is ideal for small form factor builds where power and space are at a premium. Its OpenGL support is older at 4.4, but it does support DirectX 12 (11_1), matching the K620’s feature level for most gaming and general use.

If you must choose based purely on average scores, the K620’s 6282 average edges out the Iris Pro’s 6117 by 2.7%, but that margin is small enough that platform and workload should decide. For compute-heavy professional work, take the K620. For an efficient, integrated solution with a slight Vulkan edge, take the Iris Pro 6200.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different designs. The Quadro K620 uses NVIDIA’s GM107 chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Iris Pro 6200, in contrast, uses Intel’s Broadwell GT3e chip, based on Generation 8.0 architecture, built on Intel’s own 14 nm process. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for this part, but the 14 nm node is denser than 28 nm by design.

Both GPUs have 384 shading units, but their auxiliary hardware differs significantly. The K620 has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Iris Pro 6200 has double the TMUs at 48, but only 6 ROPs. This explains the divergent rates: the K620 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s pixel fill and 26.98 GTexel/s texture fill, while the Iris Pro manages just 6.600 GPixel/s pixel fill but a much higher 52.80 GTexel/s texture fill. The K620’s higher ROP count makes it better at pixel-heavy work, while the Iris Pro’s TMU advantage favors texture-heavy scenes.

Memory architecture is another split. The K620 uses 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. This means the K620 has predictable, fixed memory performance, while the Iris Pro’s bandwidth varies with the host system’s RAM. Clock speeds also differ: the K620 runs at a base of 1058 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, while the Iris Pro idles at 300 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz. FP32 compute is nearly identical—863.2 GFLOPS for the K620 versus 844.8 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro—so raw shader throughput is not the differentiator.

Power and interface are also distinct. The K620 is a 45 W single-slot card requiring no power connectors and a 200 W PSU, with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Iris Pro is a 15 W IGP connected via Intel’s Ring Bus, with no separate power requirements. The K620 has fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2), while the Iris Pro’s outputs are motherboard dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split. In OpenCL, the Quadro K620 dominates with a score of 6693, which is 46.9% higher than the Iris Pro’s 4556. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results. OpenCL is commonly used in professional applications like video editing, scientific simulation, and CAD rendering, so the K620 is the stronger choice for those workloads. Its dedicated memory and higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s) also make it better suited for tasks that require frequent framebuffer writes or large, persistent datasets.

In Vulkan, the Intel Iris Pro 6200 takes the win with 6032 versus the K620’s 5870, a 2.7% margin. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API used in modern games and some compute workloads. The Iris Pro’s higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s) and larger TMU count likely contribute to this advantage. For gaming at lower resolutions or lightweight 3D applications, the Iris Pro may feel smoother where texture sampling is the bottleneck. Its 15 W TDP also means it generates far less heat and noise, which is a practical win for quiet or portable builds.

The K620 wins one head-to-head benchmark and the Iris Pro wins one, so neither is a universal victor. The K620’s average score (6282) is slightly higher, but the Iris Pro’s Vulkan win shows it is not outclassed. If your software uses OpenCL, the K620 is the only choice. If it uses Vulkan or you need integrated graphics, the Iris Pro is better.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 has an average score of 6282, which is 2.7% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s 6117.

Q: How big is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The K620 scores 6693 in OpenCL, while the Iris Pro scores 4556. That is a 46.9% advantage for the K620.

Q: Does the Iris Pro win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro wins the Vulkan test with 6032 versus the K620’s 5870, a 2.7% margin.

Q: Which GPU uses less power?

A: The Iris Pro has a 15 W TDP, which is significantly lower than the K620’s 45 W TDP.

Q: Can the K620 work in a low-power system?

A: Yes, the K620 requires no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, so it fits in modest desktops.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most important benchmark result is the OpenCL test, where the Quadro K620 scores 6693 and the Iris Pro scores 4556. That 46.9% delta is the largest in either direction. In practical terms, this means the K620 delivers nearly half again as much compute throughput in OpenCL-based applications. For a user running OpenCL-accelerated filters in photo editors or physics simulations in engineering tools, the K620 will finish tasks noticeably faster. The K620’s dedicated 28.80 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 16 ROPs likely drive this result, as they avoid the contention of shared system memory.

The Vulkan test is much closer. The Iris Pro scores 6032, beating the K620’s 5870 by 2.7%. While the margin is small, it is consistent with the Iris Pro’s superior texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus the K620’s 26.98 GTexel/s. In Vulkan workloads that are texture-bound, the Iris Pro’s 48 TMUs give it an edge. However, the K620’s higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s) means it could win rasterization-heavy tasks even within the same API. The net result is a split decision: one benchmark win each, with the K620’s win being far more decisive.

Given the closeness of the average scores—6282 versus 6117—the practical difference between these two is small in overall terms. But the OpenCL result is a warning: if your software stack relies on OpenCL, the K620 is in a different class. The Vulkan result, meanwhile, shows the Iris Pro is not merely a weaker alternative; it has genuine strengths in modern graphics APIs.

Specification Differences

The tables below list only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM107 | Broadwell GT3e |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | Not disclosed |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | Not disclosed |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | Not disclosed |

| Base Clock | 1058 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | System Shared |

| TMUs | 24 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 6.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.98 GTexel/s | 52.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 844.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not applicable |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not applicable |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.0 |

| Length | 160 mm (6.3 inches) | Not applicable |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | Not applicable |

| Release Date | 2014-07-21 | 2014-09-04 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Not disclosed |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Not disclosed |

The K620 is a discrete card with a fixed physical footprint and dedicated memory, while the Iris Pro is an IGP with no separate board, memory, or outputs. The K620 offers more ROPs and a higher pixel rate, while the Iris Pro counters with more TMUs and a higher texture rate. The K620 has a higher base clock (1058 MHz versus 300 MHz), but the boost clocks are nearly identical (1124 MHz versus 1100 MHz). The Iris Pro supports a slightly newer DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), but the K620 supports newer OpenGL (4.6 versus 4.4) and Vulkan (1.4 versus 1.0) versions.