Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M serve very different purposes. The P580 is a high-end integrated graphics processor, while the K4000M is a mobile workstation-class discrete GPU. The recorded data shows a clear split: the Intel part wins the single OpenCL benchmark by a wide margin, and the NVIDIA part has no benchmark victories at all. The head-to-head table shows one test, geekbench_opencl, with the Intel part taking it with a 51.7% lead. This is not a close contest; it is a matter of picking the right tool for the job.

Where Each One Wins - Use-Case Split Based on Benchmark Wins

The only head-to-head benchmark in the database is geekbench_opencl, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 wins decisively. The Intel part scores 9082, against 5986 for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. That is a 51.7% advantage for the Intel part. The data indicates the Intel chip is the stronger compute part in this specific test. The Quadro K4000M does not have a single recorded win in the head-to-head file. For any buyer whose primary workload is the exact OpenCL task measured here, the Intel part is the clear choice. The NVIDIA part is left without a case in this metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design generations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 is built on the Skylake GT4 architecture, using Intel's 14nm+ process node. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is a Kepler-generation chip, the GK104, built on TSMC's 28nm process. The Intel part is a GT4e chip with 576 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 9 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Intel part has 576 shading units versus 960 on the Quadro, a material difference in raw shader throughput. The Intel part also carries a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz, while the Quadro runs at a static 601 MHz. The Quadro has 4GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the Intel part uses system shared memory. The K4000M memory bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s, while the Intel is system dependent. The NVIDIA part is a 100W MXM module, the Intel part is a 15W IGP. The NVIDIA part is an MXM 3.0 module, the Intel part uses a ring bus. The Intel part has a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 72.00 GTexel/s; the Quadro has 12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s. The Intel part is End-of-Life, the Quadro is also End-of-Life. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3; the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part uses a ring bus, the NVIDIA part uses MXM-B.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows one head-to-head run. In geekbench_opencl, the Intel Iris Pro P580 scored 9082 against the K4000M's 5986. That is a margin of 51.7% for the Intel part. This is the single largest gap in the recorded results. The numbers align with the architectural split: the Intel part has a higher boost clock and a much higher texture and pixel fill rate, while the Quadro trades on more shading units and dedicated memory. In this particular OpenCL workload, the Intel part was far ahead. The delta of 51.7% is a decisive win.

FAQ

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units. The Intel Iris Pro P580 has 576.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K4000M has a 256-bit bus and 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P580 has a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The Quadro K4000M runs at a static 601 MHz.

Q: Which API versions are supported?

A: The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which part is more efficient?

A: The Intel part has a 15W TDP. The NVIDIA is rated at 100W.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided. If your workload is heavy on OpenCL compute, the Intel Iris Pro P580 is the faster part by a 51.7% margin. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has no benchmark wins. It does have more shading units, 960 versus 576, and 4GB of dedicated memory. The Intel part relies on system memory, which can be a bottleneck if the system memory is slow. The Quadro K4000M is a 100W MXM module, the Intel part is a 15W IGP. The recorded data shows the NVIDIA part is a specialized card for portability, the Intel part is a integrated part. Strictly from the measured data, the Intel Iris Pro P580 is the faster part in the tested workload, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has no measured advantage.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two parts differ.

| Field | Intel Iris Pro P580 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |

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

| GPU Name | Skylake GT4e | GK104 |

| Architecture | Gen 9.0 | Kepler |

| Process | 14nm+ | 28nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,540 million |

| Die size | Not listed | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 12.0M/mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Memory | System Shared | 4GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 256-bit |

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

| Shading Units | 576 | 960 |

| TMUs | 72 | 80 |

| ROPs | 9 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.000 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 48.00 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,152.0 GFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| Shading Units (FP16) | 2.304 TFLOPS | Not listed |

| TDP | 15W | 100W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

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

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| APIs | DX12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3 | DX12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175 |

| Status | End-of-Life | End-of-Life |

| Release Date | 2015-08-31 | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Not listed | Quadro Maxwell-M |