Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, if modest, victory for the NVIDIA GeForce 940M. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 posts a score of 5,712, while the NVIDIA part reaches 6,018. This gives the GeForce 940M a 5.1% lead in compute performance as measured by this workload.

A 5.1% margin is not a dominant result, but it is consistent across the recorded data. The Iris Pro P6300 does not win any of the head-to-head benchmark entries in the database, while the GeForce 940M wins the single available test. When looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the picture shifts slightly. The Intel part has an average score of 5,712, which is identical to its single OpenCL result, since that is the only benchmark recorded for it. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, has an average of 5,284, which is lower than its OpenCL score because the database also includes a Vulkan result of 4,549 for the GeForce 940M. That Vulkan score drags down the NVIDIA average considerably, but it also shows that the GeForce 940M has broader API coverage in the benchmark suite.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context for where each part sits. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX at 5,721 (a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5,731 (a 0.3% difference). On the other side, the AMD Radeon HD 8790M scores 5,691, which is 0.4% lower, and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5,604, which is 1.9% lower. These are extremely tight groupings, indicating that the Iris Pro P6300 lands in a dense cluster of mid-range parts from several generations.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M sits in a different cluster. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236, which is 0.9% lower. The GeForce GTX 980M shows a 5,308 average, which is 0.4% higher than the 940M. The GeForce 930A and GeForce 840M both sit slightly above the 940M as well, at 5,317 and 5,322 respectively, representing 0.6% and 0.7% margins. It is worth remembering the GeForce 940M's percentile rank among all GPUs is 31, while the Iris Pro P6300 ranks at 33. This means that, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, the Intel part occupies a slightly higher percentile position in the overall database distribution, likely because its average is not pulled down by a second, lower-scoring benchmark.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute-focused workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the faster part in the single benchmark where both are measured, with a 5.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. However, the Intel Iris Pro P6300 holds a slightly higher overall percentile rank (33 versus 31), which reflects its higher average score when considering all recorded benchmarks. This is an artifact of the database containing only one test for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA part has a much lower Vulkan result that reduces its average.

For users who care about raw OpenCL compute performance, the GeForce 940M is the choice. The 6,018 score versus 5,712 is a direct, apples-to-apples comparison. For users who value consistency across multiple API workloads, the Intel part shows no weakness in the database, but that is because there is no additional data to expose any. The GeForce 940M's Vulkan score of 4,549 is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting that its performance is API-dependent. The Intel part has no recorded Vulkan result, so no such comparison can be made for it.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a candidate for new system builds. Within the context of used or existing hardware, the GeForce 940M wins the compute benchmark, but the Intel part offers the advantage of being an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, which has implications for system-level power draw that are discussed below.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M wins with a score of 6,018, which is 5.1% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5,712.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro P6300 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Intel part, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M records one win in the single head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: Why does the NVIDIA GeForce 940M have a lower average benchmark score than the Intel part?

A: The GeForce 940M has two recorded benchmark scores: 6,018 in OpenCL and 4,549 in Vulkan. Its average is 5,284. The Intel part has only one recorded score of 5,712, which is also its average, so it is not reduced by any additional lower-scoring test.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M sits at the 31st percentile, despite the NVIDIA part winning the direct comparison.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Intel Iris Pro P6300 in the database?

A: The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, which scores 5,721, a difference of only 0.1% from the Intel part's 5,712.

Q: Which API versions does each GPU support?

A: 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.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every physical and clock specification recorded in the database. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M runs at a base of 1,020 MHz and a boost of 1,098 MHz. The NVIDIA part's memory runs at 900 MHz with 1,800 Mbps effective, while the Intel part uses system-shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The GeForce 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The shading unit count favors NVIDIA: 512 shading units versus 384 for Intel. However, the Intel part has more texture mapping units, 48 versus 32. The render output units heavily favor NVIDIA, with 16 versus 6 for Intel.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences. The GeForce 940M produces 17.57 GPixel/s, which is more than three and a half times the Intel part's 4.800 GPixel/s. Texture rates are closer: 35.14 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 38.40 GTexel/s for Intel, an unusual result where the Intel part is ahead despite having fewer shading units. Floating-point performance favors NVIDIA substantially, with 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS for Intel.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Intel part has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. The NVIDIA part has a TDP of 75 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The NVIDIA part's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the Intel part's are motherboard dependent. The NVIDIA chip is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel part is fabricated by Intel on a 14 nm process, with no transistor count or die size recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. The Intel part is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry, while the NVIDIA part is on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

The Intel part is an integrated GPU with system-shared memory, which means its memory characteristics are dependent on the host system. The NVIDIA part is a discrete mobile GPU with dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory. The Intel part's FP16 performance is not recorded, and its FP32 is 614.4 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part's FP32 is 1,124.4 GFLOPS, and its FP16 is also not recorded.

API support differs in both version numbers and capabilities. 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 a higher OpenGL and Vulkan version, while the Intel part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level. The NVIDIA part also has a predecessor (GeForce 800M) and successor (GeForce 10 Mobile) recorded, while the Intel part has neither.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 5.1%. It also has substantially higher pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s), higher FP32 throughput (1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS), and significantly more render output units (16 versus 6). This makes it the stronger choice for workloads that are heavily dependent on pixel fill rate and raw floating-point compute, such as rendering tasks or general-purpose GPU compute that can leverage the higher shading unit count.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 wins in texture rate, posting 38.40 GTexel/s against the GeForce 940M's 35.14 GTexel/s. This is a narrow but real advantage, and it comes from having 48 TMUs compared to 32. The Intel part also has a much lower TDP at 15 W versus 75 W, which makes it the more power-efficient option in systems where the GPU is integrated into the processor. Its system-shared memory means no dedicated VRAM allocation is needed, and its motherboard-dependent display outputs make it suitable for designs where the GPU is not a separate module.

For compute-heavy tasks where OpenCL performance is the primary metric, the GeForce 940M is the better pick. For texture-bound workloads or power-constrained integrated designs, the Intel part has advantages that the raw benchmark scores do not fully capture. The percentile ranking slightly favors Intel (33 versus 31), which indicates that across the entire database distribution, the Intel part sits marginally higher, but this should be weighed against the fact that the NVIDIA part has been tested in more API workloads. The GeForce 940M's Vulkan score of 4,549 suggests that its performance is not uniform across all APIs, while the Intel part has no recorded Vulkan result to compare.