Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

The two graphics solutions compared here, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, represent different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a clear winner in the single recorded benchmark, but the story behind that result reveals much about how each chip approaches its work. The GeForce GTS 450 is a dedicated add-in card from 2010, built for desktop gaming, while the Iris Pro P6300 is an integrated processor graphics solution from 2014, designed to sit inside a laptop or compact desktop. Their architectures, memory strategies, and feature sets diverge sharply, and the benchmark results reflect those differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893. The delta percentage shows the Intel part leading by 14.3 percent. That is a substantial margin, not a marginal one. The Iris Pro does not just edge out the older NVIDIA card; it outperforms it by a meaningful double-digit gap.

To put that score in context, the database places the Iris Pro at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTS 450 sits at the 28th percentile. A five-percentile gap in overall standing aligns with the 14.3 percent benchmark delta. The Iris Pro also sits closer to stronger rivals: its nearest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX at 5721 (0.1 percent ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (0.3 percent ahead). The GTS 450, by contrast, finds itself near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.2 percent ahead) and the AMD FirePro W5130M at 4904 (0.2 percent ahead). The RTX 5060 Ti is a modern card, but its presence near the GTS 450 in this specific OpenCL test shows that the older Fermi architecture still produces a competitive compute score, even if it loses to the Intel integrated solution.

The head-to-head result is unambiguous: one win for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, zero wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450. The delta of -14.3 percent is recorded from the perspective of the NVIDIA card, meaning the GTS 450 trails by that amount. For a dedicated GPU facing an integrated processor graphics unit, that outcome is notable. The Iris Pro’s higher score suggests its compute pipeline, despite being integrated, delivers more raw OpenCL throughput than the older discrete card.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells a story of two very different design approaches. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured at TSMC on a 40 nm process. The die size is 238 mm² and contains 1,170 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. Fermi was NVIDIA’s architecture for the GeForce 400 series, and the GTS 450 sits in that generation. It uses a dual-slot cooler, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a thermal design power of 106 W. The card is 210 mm long and 111 mm tall, making it a physically substantial component.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, in contrast, is part of the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part, as those figures are not measured in the same way for integrated graphics. The TDP is just 15 W, a fraction of the NVIDIA card’s 106 W. It is an IGP, meaning it occupies the same package as the CPU, with no separate cooler, no power connectors, and no add-in card dimensions. The bus interface is a Ring Bus, whereas the GTS 450 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Clock behavior also differs fundamentally. The GTS 450 has a memory clock of 902 MHz, which translates to 3.6 Gbps effective for its GDDR5 memory. The Iris Pro has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. The NVIDIA card’s core clock is not listed in the database, but its memory configuration is fixed and dedicated. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, with a bandwidth listed as System Dependent. That means the Iris Pro’s memory performance varies with the host system’s RAM, rather than being a fixed specification.

Shading units and texture mapping units show another split. The GTS 450 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, but only 6 ROPs. That is a striking imbalance: the Intel part has double the shaders and 50 percent more TMUs, yet less than half the ROP count. This affects pixel throughput, where the GTS 450 achieves 6.264 GPixel/s versus the Iris Pro’s 4.800 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card wins on pixel fill rate. However, texture rate favors the Intel part: 38.40 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s. Compute throughput is close: the GTS 450 delivers 601.3 GFLOPS, while the Iris Pro delivers 614.4 GFLOPS, a tiny margin of just over two percent.

The API support also differs. The GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. So the Intel part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level and adds Vulkan support, while the NVIDIA card has a newer OpenGL version. Neither supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features are not listed for either chip.

Where Each One Wins

The data points toward distinct use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins on pixel rate, delivering 6.264 GPixel/s versus the Intel part’s 4.800 GPixel/s. This matters for traditional rasterization workloads where fill rate limits performance, such as older games running at lower resolutions with heavy overdraw. The GTS 450 also has dedicated GDDR5 memory with a fixed bus width of 128 bit and a bandwidth of 57.73 GB/s. That dedicated memory does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth, which can be an advantage in scenarios where system RAM is slow or shared with other tasks.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the benchmark and leads on texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s) and compute (614.4 GFLOPS). Its higher shading unit count suggests better shader-bound performance in modern workloads, and its Vulkan support opens the door to newer APIs that the GTS 450 cannot use. The 14 nm process means vastly better power efficiency: 15 W versus 106 W is a sevenfold difference. That makes the Iris Pro viable for thin-and-light systems where the GTS 450 would require a substantial power supply and cooling solution.

For users with a desktop motherboard that still supports PCIe 2.0 x16 and a 300 W power supply, the GTS 450 offers a discrete upgrade path with its own memory pool. Its dual-slot design and 210 mm length require case space, but it delivers a consistent pixel rate. For laptop buyers or compact system builders, the Iris Pro is the only option of the two, and its benchmark lead suggests it does not sacrifice much compute performance despite being integrated.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scored higher in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scored 5712, which is 14.3 percent higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450’s score of 4893.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The GTS 450 has a TDP of 106 W, while the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a TDP of 15 W, a difference of 91 W.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each GPU?

A: The GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus with 57.73 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: Does the Iris Pro support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 lists Vulkan 1.0 support. The GTS 450 does not list Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA GTS 450 has 192 shading units.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The GTS 450 is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the Iris Pro is built on a 14 nm process at Intel.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The process node is 40 nm for the GTS 450 versus 14 nm for the Iris Pro. The GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip with Fermi architecture, while the Iris Pro uses Broadwell GT3e with Generation 8.0 architecture. Transistor count is 1,170 million for the NVIDIA part; the Intel part has no listed transistor count. Die size is 238 mm² for the GTS 450, and none is listed for the Iris Pro.

Memory clocks differ: the GTS 450 runs at 902 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), while the Iris Pro has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all dedicated on the GTS 450 (1024 MB GDDR5, 128 bit, 57.73 GB/s), whereas the Iris Pro uses System Shared for all four fields. Shading units are 192 versus 384. TMUs are 32 versus 48. ROPs are 16 versus 6. Pixel rate is 6.264 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 25.06 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 601.3 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS.

TDP is 106 W versus 15 W. Slot width is Dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: the GTS 450 requires 1x 6-pin, the Iris Pro has none. Suggested PSU is 300 W for the GTS 450, and none for the Iris Pro. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTS 450, versus Motherboard Dependent for the Iris Pro. APIs differ: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 versus 4.4, and Vulkan absent versus 1.0. Dimensions are 210 mm by 111 mm for the GTS 450, with no dimensions for the Intel part. The release dates are September 2010 for the GTS 450 and September 2014 for the Iris Pro. The GTS 450 has a launch MSRP of 129 USD; the Iris Pro has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data favors the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 for compute workloads. Its 5712 OpenCL score, 14.3 percent ahead of the GTS 450, places it in a higher percentile (33rd versus 28th) and closer to cards like the GTX 670MX and GTX 550 Ti. The Iris Pro also offers Vulkan support, a newer DirectX feature level, double the shading units, higher texture rate, and dramatically lower power consumption at 15 W.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 retains advantages in pixel rate (6.264 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s), dedicated memory with a fixed bandwidth, and a higher OpenGL version (4.6 versus 4.4). Its 106 W TDP and dual-slot requirement are drawbacks, but for systems that can accommodate a discrete card, the dedicated GDDR5 memory may provide steadier performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The choice depends on the platform. For a desktop with an available PCIe slot and power supply, the GTS 450 offers a discrete solution with its own memory and higher pixel throughput. For integrated systems, laptops, or low-power builds, the Iris Pro delivers better overall compute performance, more shaders, and a smaller footprint. The data shows the Iris Pro as the stronger performer in the recorded benchmark, but the GTS 450’s fill rate and dedicated memory keep it relevant for specific rasterization tasks.