Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the dominant performer in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. It wins both shared tests, geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan, with margins exceeding 75%. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, an integrated graphics solution, cannot match the discrete Quadro in raw compute throughput.

The Quadro M4000 should be the choice for users whose workloads rely on OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration, as its scores dwarf those of the Iris Pro. The Intel part, by contrast, is best suited for systems where its 15 W TDP and integrated form factor matter more than peak performance. The data shows no scenario where the Iris Pro wins a benchmark outright. Its average benchmark score of 6117 does exceed the Quadro's 5467 average, but that figure is skewed by the different test sets each product was subjected to. In the only directly comparable tests, the Quadro leads by a wide margin.

Buyers seeking a dedicated workstation card with a 120 W TDP, 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, and a 256-bit memory bus should look to the Quadro M4000. Buyers constrained to an integrated processor graphics solution with a 15 W TDP should consider the Iris Pro, but they must accept substantially lower OpenCL and Vulkan performance. The verdict is simple: the Quadro M4000 wins on performance, while the Iris Pro wins on integration efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two products come from completely different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Broadwell GT3e silicon using a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that shares system memory, with no dedicated VRAM. Its architecture is Generation 8.0, part of the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation. The chip packs 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 6 ROPs. Its rendering rates are modest: a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute of 844.8 GFLOPS.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is a discrete workstation card built on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². Its compute resources are far larger: 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s, texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput reaches 2.573 TFLOPS, roughly three times the Iris Pro's figure.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro's bus interface is Ring Bus, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Iris Pro is motherboard dependent, whereas the Quadro provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2 connectors.

API support favors the Quadro. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are end-of-life products, with the Iris Pro released on 2014-09-04 and the Quadro on 2015-06-28. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal; the Iris Pro lists no predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. In the geekbench_opencl test, the Intel Iris Pro scores 4556, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19118. That is a delta of -76.2% for the Intel part, meaning the Quadro is more than four times faster. In geekbench_vulkan, the Iris Pro scores 6032 against the Quadro's 24640, a delta of -75.5%. Again, the Quadro leads by roughly a factor of four.

These are not close contests. The Quadro M4000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and the win count stands at 0 for the Iris Pro and 2 for the Quadro. The Vulkan result is particularly telling: even though the Iris Pro supports Vulkan 1.0, its implementation cannot approach the Quadro's Maxwell 2.0 architecture in compute-heavy workloads.

The Iris Pro's own benchmark suite shows a geekbench_metal score of 7764, which the Quadro was not tested on. That score contributes to the Iris Pro's average of 6117, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro's average of 5467 places it in the 32nd percentile. The percentile difference is small, but the head-to-head deltas are enormous. The averages are computed over different test sets, so they do not reflect direct competition.

For context, the Iris Pro's nearest rivals by average score are the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6137 (delta -0.3%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (delta 0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (delta 0.7%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (delta 1.1%). The Quadro M4000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (delta -0.3%), the AMD Radeon 610M at 5444 (delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (delta -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (delta -0.7%). Both products sit in a dense cluster of mid-range and entry-level parts, but the direct comparison reveals the Quadro's clear advantage.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Iris Pro uses a 14 nm process at Intel, while the Quadro M4000 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Iris Pro has no listed transistor count or die size; the Quadro has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The Iris Pro's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz; the Quadro lists no base or boost clocks. Memory is the starkest difference: the Iris Pro uses system shared memory, while the Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units: 384 versus 1664. TMUs: 48 versus 104. ROPs: 6 versus 64. Pixel rate: 6.600 GPixel/s versus 49.47 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 52.80 GTexel/s versus 80.39 GTexel/s. FP32: 844.8 GFLOPS versus 2.573 TFLOPS. TDP: 15 W versus 120 W. Slot width: IGP versus single-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU: none versus 300 W. Bus interface: Ring Bus versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: motherboard dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Dimensions: the Quadro is 241 mm long and 111 mm high; the Iris Pro has no listed dimensions. The Quadro also lists a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Iris Pro's memory clock is listed as system shared. Neither product has RT cores, tensor cores, or FP16 performance listed.

The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro's API support is newer across the board. Release dates differ by roughly ten months, with the Iris Pro launching first. Neither product has a launch MSRP listed in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which product wins the geekbench_opencl benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins with a score of 19118, versus the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556, a delta of -76.2% for the Intel part.

Q: How does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Iris Pro scores 6032 in geekbench_vulkan, while the Quadro M4000 scores 24640, a delta of -75.5%. The Quadro is roughly four times faster.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each product?

A: The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which product has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units, while the Iris Pro has 384, a difference of 1280 units.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Iris Pro is rated at 15 W, while the Quadro M4000 is rated at 120 W. The Quadro also suggests a 300 W PSU and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector.

Q: Do both products support Vulkan?

A: Yes. The Iris Pro supports Vulkan 1.0, while the Quadro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins in every direct benchmark comparison. It leads in geekbench_opencl by 76.2% and in geekbench_vulkan by 75.5%. Its compute resources are overwhelming: 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth removes any dependency on system memory. The Quadro's 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate are roughly seven and one-and-a-half times the Iris Pro's figures, respectively. For any workload that stresses OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro is the clear winner.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins on integration efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is one-eighth of the Quadro's 120 W. It requires no power connector, no suggested PSU, and occupies no expansion slot, as it is an IGP. Its memory is system shared, which eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM. The Iris Pro's 14 nm process is newer than the Quadro's 28 nm process, and its 384 shading units are sufficient for light workloads. It also has a geekbench_metal score of 7764, a test the Quadro was not recorded in. The Iris Pro's average benchmark score of 6117 exceeds the Quadro's 5467, though this reflects different test sets rather than direct competition.

Use-case split: the Quadro M4000 is for professional, compute-heavy tasks such as OpenCL acceleration, Vulkan rendering, and multi-display output via its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. The Iris Pro is for compact, low-power systems where the CPU's integrated graphics must suffice, and where the 15 W TDP and motherboard-dependent display outputs are acceptable. Neither product is current; both are end-of-life. The Quadro's 32nd percentile ranking and the Iris Pro's 35th percentile ranking show that both sit in the lower-middle range of the database's GPU population, but the direct head-to-head data favors the Quadro without exception.