Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957. The Intel part sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, and the NVIDIA part at the 34th percentile, making them statistically near-identical in overall standing.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins the only shared head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. It scores 5957 versus Intel's 4556, a delta of -23.5% from Intel's perspective, meaning NVIDIA is roughly 30.7% faster in this specific test.

Q: What is the difference in graphics API support between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving NVIDIA a newer OpenGL and Vulkan implementation.

Q: How do their memory architectures differ?

A: The Intel GPU uses System Shared memory with a bus width and type also listed as System Shared, making bandwidth "System Dependent." The NVIDIA Quadro K620M has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more texture mapping units and what does that imply?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 48 TMUs versus NVIDIA's 16 TMUs. This gives Intel a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s compared to NVIDIA's 17.98 GTexel/s, a significant advantage in texture-heavy workloads.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a TDP of 30 W. Intel's integrated design draws half the power of NVIDIA's mobile module.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Broadwell GT3e silicon using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process gap is substantial — Intel's 14 nm node is two generations ahead of NVIDIA's 28 nm node in terms of lithographic scaling.

The memory subsystem is a major architectural differentiator. Intel's GPU has no dedicated VRAM; it relies entirely on System Shared memory, with the bus width and type also listed as System Shared. This makes its bandwidth "System Dependent," meaning performance scales with the host system's memory configuration. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M, by contrast, carries 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering a fixed 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives NVIDIA a deterministic memory performance profile, while Intel's is variable.

Shader and pixel pipeline configurations tell a more nuanced story. Both GPUs have 384 shading units, but their auxiliary hardware diverges sharply. Intel allocates 48 texture mapping units and 6 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s. NVIDIA uses 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs, producing 8.992 GPixel/s of pixel throughput but only 17.98 GTexel/s of texture throughput. Intel's texture rate is nearly triple NVIDIA's, while NVIDIA's pixel rate is about 36% higher.

Clock behavior differs in both base and boost states. Intel's GPU runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 1100 MHz. NVIDIA's starts at 1029 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz. The raw FP32 compute is nearly identical: Intel achieves 844.8 GFLOPS and NVIDIA achieves 863.2 GFLOPS, a negligible 2.2% difference. NVIDIA's memory clock is 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective data rate.

Interface and form factor also diverge. Intel's GPU is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, and its display outputs are Motherboard Dependent. NVIDIA's is an MXM Module using the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface with Portable Device Dependent outputs. NVIDIA's chip is also physically characterized: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2M / mm². Intel's transistor count and die size are not specified.

API support favors NVIDIA in two of three major categories. NVIDIA supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, while Intel supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12, but Intel's is at the 11_1 feature level while NVIDIA's is at 11_0. NVIDIA's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M; Intel's series, predecessor, and successor fields are all null.

The Verdict

The data presents a close contest with a clear split by workload type. For users who prioritize compute performance in OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M is the stronger choice. Its 5957 OpenCL score versus Intel's 4556 is a decisive 30.7% advantage in that single shared benchmark. This is the only head-to-head test available, and NVIDIA wins it outright.

For users running texture-heavy workloads or applications that leverage a broader set of benchmark metrics, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has the edge. Its average benchmark score of 6117 across three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan) exceeds NVIDIA's 5957 single-test average. Intel also holds a 3x advantage in texture fill rate, which could benefit certain graphics pipelines.

Power-constrained environments favor Intel decisively. The 15 W TDP is exactly half of NVIDIA's 30 W, making Intel the obvious choice for thin-and-light systems with limited thermal headroom. NVIDIA's higher TDP is justified by its dedicated memory and higher pixel rate, but it requires more robust cooling.

The percentile ranking is nearly identical — 35th for Intel versus 34th for NVIDIA — indicating that in the broader GPU landscape, neither part is meaningfully stronger. The choice ultimately comes down to whether the workload is compute-bound (NVIDIA) or texture-bound with lower power requirements (Intel).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | NVIDIA Quadro K620M |

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

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | GM108S |

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not specified | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 16.02 GB/s |

| TMUs | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 6 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 844.8 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

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

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark test is shared between the two GPUs, which makes the comparison straightforward but limited. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 against Intel's 4556. The delta percentage is -23.5% from Intel's perspective, which translates to NVIDIA being approximately 30.7% faster. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload, suggesting NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture handles OpenCL parallelism more efficiently despite having the same shader count.

Beyond the direct head-to-head, the average benchmark scores provide additional context. Intel's average of 6117 is derived from three tests: Geekbench Metal at 7764, Geekbench OpenCL at 4556, and Geekbench Vulkan at 6032. NVIDIA's average of 5957 comes from its single Geekbench OpenCL result. Intel's Metal score of 7764 is notably strong, indicating excellent performance on Apple's Metal API, while its Vulkan score of 6032 also exceeds NVIDIA's OpenCL result.

The nearest rivals for each GPU reinforce the closeness of this matchup. Intel's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6137 (a -0.3% delta), followed by the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (+0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (+0.7%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (+1.1%). NVIDIA's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970 (-0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (-0.4%), and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 (+0.5%). Both GPUs sit within a 2% band of their nearest competitors, confirming that neither has a meaningful overall performance advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in aggregate benchmark performance. Its average score of 6117 across three API tests tops NVIDIA's 5957. The Metal benchmark is Intel's strongest showing at 7764, and its Vulkan score of 6032 also exceeds NVIDIA's only benchmark result. For users running applications that use Metal or Vulkan, Intel has demonstrated higher performance in those specific APIs. The texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA's 17.98 GTexel/s gives Intel a 2.9x advantage in texture fill operations, which could matter for certain rendering workloads. Intel also wins decisively on power efficiency with a 15 W TDP versus NVIDIA's 30 W.

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins in the only direct head-to-head comparison available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5957 beats Intel's 4556 by 30.7%, making it the clear choice for OpenCL compute tasks. NVIDIA also has a higher pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s versus Intel's 6.600 GPixel/s, a 36% advantage in pixel throughput that benefits rasterization-heavy workloads. The dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth provides consistent performance that does not depend on the host system's memory configuration. NVIDIA's newer API support — OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 versus Intel's OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0 — also makes it the better choice for applications leveraging newer API features.

The power split is stark. Intel's integrated design with System Shared memory and a 15 W TDP suits ultra-portable, thermally constrained systems. NVIDIA's MXM module with 30 W TDP and dedicated memory suits mobile workstations where compute performance and memory determinism take priority over battery life. Given that both GPUs are end-of-life products, the choice is purely about matching the specific workload requirements: Intel for texture-heavy, API-diverse, low-power scenarios; NVIDIA for OpenCL compute and pixel-rate-sensitive tasks.