Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are remarkably tight. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 posts 9082. That is a delta of just 0.7%, a margin so slim that it falls within typical run-to-run variance for OpenCL workloads. The Quadro K4100M takes the win, but the data does not suggest any meaningful performance gap in this specific compute test.

Looking at the broader benchmark profile, the two GPUs sit at nearly the same level in the database's percentile rankings. The Quadro K4100M holds a 41st percentile versus all GPUs, while the Iris Pro P580 sits at the 39th percentile. Their average benchmark scores tell a similar story: 7906 for the Quadro and 7170 for the Iris Pro, a difference of roughly 10%. Yet the head-to-head OpenCL result shows only a 0.7% separation, which suggests that the gap in the average scores comes from the additional benchmark types each card was tested on, not from a fundamental compute advantage.

The Quadro K4100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 6662, a test the Iris Pro was not measured on. Conversely, the Iris Pro P580 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5258, a test the Quadro does not appear in. These are different API paths, so direct comparison is not possible, but their presence in the database highlights that each GPU has strengths in different software ecosystems.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4100M wins the only shared benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 0.7%. That is the sole recorded victory in head-to-head data, giving it a 1-0 record. For OpenCL compute tasks, the data indicates a slight edge for the NVIDIA part, though the margin is negligible in practical terms.

The Iris Pro P580, despite losing the head-to-head, has its own distinct advantage: the Vulkan score of 5258. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API than OpenCL in many workloads, and the fact that the Iris Pro can produce a measurable Vulkan result while the Quadro has none in the database suggests the Intel part is better positioned for Vulkan-based applications. Additionally, the Iris Pro's FP16 performance is listed at 2.304 TFLOPS, while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. For workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, the Iris Pro has a clear functional advantage.

In terms of raw rasterization throughput, the texture rate favors the Iris Pro: 72.00 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s for the Quadro. That is a 6% edge in texture fill, which can matter in texture-bound scenes. The Quadro counters with pixel rate: 16.94 GPixel/s versus 9.000 GPixel/s, a 88% advantage in pixel fill. So the split is clear: the Intel part is better at texture-heavy work, the NVIDIA part is better at pixel-heavy work.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Iris Pro P580 uses the Skylake GT4e chip on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm+ process at Intel. The database lists no transistor count or die size for the Intel part, but the process node is two generations ahead in lithography terms.

The Kepler architecture is a discrete GPU design with dedicated memory, while the Iris Pro is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) sharing system resources. This fundamental difference shows up everywhere. The Quadro has 1152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Iris Pro has 576 shading units, 72 TMUs, and only 9 ROPs. The shading unit count is exactly double on the NVIDIA side, yet the texture units are only 33% higher, and the ROP count is 3.5 times higher. This imbalance explains the pixel rate dominance of the Quadro.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic range. The Iris Pro has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, a nearly 3x range that allows it to scale power consumption with workload. The memory subsystems are entirely different classes: the Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent". This means the Intel part's memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system's RAM configuration, a variable that the database cannot normalize.

The API support differs in notable ways. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which can matter for compatibility with modern titles and compute frameworks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm+ for Intel. The Quadro has 1152 shading units versus 576, 96 TMUs versus 72, and 32 ROPs versus 9. The clock speeds are 706 MHz fixed versus 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. The memory configuration is 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, versus system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

The pixel rate is 16.94 GPixel/s versus 9.000 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 67.78 GTexel/s versus 72.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 1.627 TFLOPS versus 1,152.0 GFLOPS, a 41% advantage for the Quadro. The Iris Pro has FP16 capability at 2.304 TFLOPS, while the Quadro has none listed. The TDP is 100 W for the Quadro versus 15 W for the Iris Pro, a 6.7x difference in power draw. The slot width is MXM Module for the Quadro versus IGP for the Intel. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro versus Ring Bus for the Intel. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the Quadro and motherboard dependent for the Intel. The release dates are July 2013 for the Quadro and August 2015 for the Iris Pro, a gap of roughly two years.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M delivers 1.627 TFLOPS, which is 41% higher than the Intel Iris Pro P580's 1,152.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro P580 support any precision mode the Quadro lacks?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro P580 lists FP16 performance at 2.304 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro K4100M has no FP16 capability listed in the database.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro P580 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance relies on the host system's RAM.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Iris Pro P580 has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel part draws about 85% less power.

Q: Which GPU has better pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a pixel rate of 16.94 GPixel/s, which is 88% higher than the Iris Pro P580's 9.000 GPixel/s, thanks to its 32 ROPs versus 9.

Q: Are there any API version differences?

A: Yes. The Iris Pro P580 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two very different tools. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is a discrete mobile workstation GPU with dedicated GDDR5 memory, a 256-bit bus, and 32 ROPs. Its strengths are pixel throughput, FP32 compute, and memory bandwidth. It wins the only shared benchmark by 0.7% and holds a higher average benchmark score of 7906 versus 7170. It is also the only one of the two with a recorded Metal score, at 6662.

The Intel Iris Pro P580 is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, system shared memory, and a 14 nm+ process. Its advantages are power efficiency, texture fill rate, FP16 support, and newer API versions. It also posts a Vulkan score of 5258, which is a capability the Quadro does not demonstrate in the database.

For users who need maximum pixel fill, dedicated memory bandwidth, and higher FP32 throughput, the Quadro K4100M is the data-backed choice. Its 88% pixel rate advantage and 41% FP32 advantage are decisive for those workloads. For users who prioritize power efficiency, texture-heavy rendering, FP16 compute, or Vulkan compatibility, the Iris Pro P580 has the edge. The 15 W TDP versus 100 W is a 6.7x difference that cannot be ignored in thermally constrained systems.

The benchmark results indicate that in raw OpenCL compute, the two are nearly identical, with only 0.7% separating them. The real differentiators are architectural: discrete versus integrated, dedicated memory versus shared, and 100 W versus 15 W. The Quadro is the performance-first workstation part; the Iris Pro is the efficiency-first integrated solution. Neither dominates the other across all metrics, but each has a clear domain where it belongs.