Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two mobile graphics solutions cleanly by workload and platform. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5712 against the NVIDIA GeForce 930A’s 5317 — a 7.4% advantage. That puts the Intel part at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 31st percentile. For a builder choosing between an embedded Intel solution and a discrete-class NVIDIA chip, the Intel part is the better pick for raw compute throughput in OpenCL tasks, but the NVIDIA part counters with higher clock speeds, a larger dedicated memory pool, and a more modern API feature set.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is the safer choice for systems where power efficiency and integration matter most, given its 15 W TDP versus the 930A’s 33 W. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A, however, is the better pick for workloads that rely on dedicated VRAM and higher sustained clocks, as its 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer and 928 MHz base clock (941 MHz boost) give it a structural advantage in memory-bound scenarios. If the choice is strictly about the OpenCL score, the Intel part wins. If the choice is about memory capacity and API modernity, the NVIDIA part is the more practical option.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 wins the only direct benchmark comparison available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5712 beats the GeForce 930A’s 5317 by 7.4%. That single result indicates the Intel part has a compute throughput edge in OpenCL workloads, which is notable given its lower TDP and integrated nature. The Intel part also has a higher texture fill rate at 38.40 GTexel/s versus the NVIDIA part’s 22.58 GTexel/s, and a higher shading unit count at 384 versus 384 — a tie in shaders but a significant lead in texture operations. This makes the Intel part better suited for texture-heavy compute tasks or OpenCL acceleration where the driver stack can leverage its Generation 8.0 architecture effectively.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins in several structural categories that don’t show up in the single benchmark but matter in real-world use. It has a higher pixel rate at 7.528 GPixel/s versus the Intel part’s 4.800 GPixel/s — a 56.8% advantage in raw pixel throughput. It also has a higher FP32 performance at 722.7 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS, a 17.6% lead. The NVIDIA part’s 2 GB dedicated DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth is a clear win over the Intel part’s System Shared memory, which relies on system RAM and has bandwidth listed as “System Dependent.” For games or applications that need stable, dedicated frame buffer access, the NVIDIA part is the more reliable choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, using the Broadwell GT3e chip with Generation 8.0 architecture. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, using the GM108 chip with Maxwell architecture. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it shares system memory and is reliant on motherboard-dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and is a discrete-class part with its own 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer.

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm gives the Intel part a density and efficiency advantage, reflected in its 15 W TDP versus 33 W for the NVIDIA part. The NVIDIA part, however, compensates with much higher clocks: 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, versus the Intel part’s 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost. The Intel part has 48 TMUs versus the NVIDIA part’s 24, but the NVIDIA part has 8 ROPs versus the Intel part’s 6. Shading units are identical at 384. The NVIDIA part also has a transistor count of 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2M per mm²; the Intel part’s transistor count and die size are not listed.

API support differs meaningfully. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part’s higher OpenGL and Vulkan versions are a practical advantage for modern applications that target newer API revisions, even though its DirectX support is technically one revision lower (11_0 versus 11_1). The Intel part’s memory clock is listed as “System Shared,” while the NVIDIA part runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 scores 5712, which is 7.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 930A’s 5317.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel part has a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part has a 33 W TDP. The Intel part is more than twice as power-efficient, which matters for thin-and-light systems.

Q: Which GPU offers better memory configurability?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with bandwidth described as “System Dependent,” meaning it varies with the host system’s RAM.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions.

Q: What is the production status of both parts?

A: Both are listed as End-of-life. The Intel part was released on 2014-09-04, and the NVIDIA part on 2015-03-12.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part runs at 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, which is substantially higher. However, the Intel part still wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a clear win for the Intel Iris Pro P6300. The Intel part scores 5712 against the NVIDIA GeForce 930A’s 5317, a delta of 7.4%. That is a meaningful gap in compute performance, especially considering the Intel part does it with a 15 W TDP versus the NVIDIA part’s 33 W. The Intel part’s lead is even more impressive when you look at its nearest rivals: it sits just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721) and 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731), while leading the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691) by 0.4% and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) by 1.9%. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A, by contrast, sits 0.1% behind the GeForce 840M (5322), 0.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M (5308), 0.6% ahead of the GeForce 940M (5284), and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358). The Intel part’s score places it in a higher performance tier than the NVIDIA part’s closest competition.

Looking at the underlying specifications, the Intel part’s win is driven by its texture throughput. With 48 TMUs and a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s, it more than doubles the NVIDIA part’s 24 TMUs and 22.58 GTexel/s. The Intel part’s FP32 performance, however, is lower at 614.4 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, which means the NVIDIA part should win in raw floating-point compute. Yet the OpenCL benchmark favors the Intel part, suggesting that the Intel driver and architecture are better optimized for this specific workload. The NVIDIA part’s higher pixel rate (7.528 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s) indicates it would win in fill-rate-bound scenarios, but those don’t appear in the benchmark data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every hardware specification except shading units. Both have 384 shading units, but the Intel part has 48 texture mapping units (TMUs) while the NVIDIA part has 24. The NVIDIA part has 8 render output units (ROPs) versus the Intel part’s 6. Clock speeds are drastically different: the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part runs at 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost. The process nodes are 14 nm (Intel) and 28 nm (TSMC), which explains the TDP difference: 15 W for Intel versus 33 W for NVIDIA.

Memory is a major differentiator. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with no dedicated size, type, or bus width — everything is shared with the host system. The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth and a 1001 MHz memory clock. The Intel part’s memory bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent,” meaning it has no fixed figure. In terms of compute rates, the Intel part achieves 4.800 GPixel/s pixel fill and 38.40 GTexel/s texture fill, while the NVIDIA part achieves 7.528 GPixel/s and 22.58 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 614.4 GFLOPS for Intel and 722.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Bus interface and display outputs also differ. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus and has motherboard-dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has portable-device-dependent display outputs. The NVIDIA part has no power connectors, while the Intel part lists none as well. The NVIDIA part’s transistor count is 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm²; the Intel part’s transistor count and die size are not provided. The NVIDIA part’s predecessor is the GeForce 800A, while the Intel part has no listed predecessor. Both are end-of-life products, with the Intel part released on 2014-09-04 and the NVIDIA part on 2015-03-12.