Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The data presents a clear hierarchy between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. The GTX 980M is a dedicated, high-performance mobile GPU from NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into a Broadwell chip. Based strictly on the benchmark results provided, the GTX 980M is overwhelmingly more powerful, but the Iris Pro P6300 occupies a distinct niche due to its integration and efficiency profile. The following analysis details the quantitative differences and the implications for potential users.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the superior choice for any task requiring raw graphics compute performance. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832, while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 scores 5712. This represents a 317.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a gap that dwarfs any other comparison in this data set. For gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated compute, the GTX 980M is the only viable option based on these numbers.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300, conversely, is not positioned as a competitor in that arena. Its place is defined by its integration. As an IGP with a 15 W TDP and system-shared memory, it is designed for ultraportable or embedded systems where power draw and space are at a premium. Its average benchmark score of 5712 places it at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, which is slightly higher than the GTX 980M’s 31st percentile. This suggests that while the GTX 980M has a massive peak performance advantage, the Iris Pro is a more "average" performer in the broader GPU landscape, likely because the data set includes many less powerful integrated and low-end discrete parts.

Therefore, the verdict is a split decision based on use case. If the priority is maximum graphics throughput, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the definitive pick. If the priority is a low-power, integrated solution for basic display and light compute tasks in a compact system, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is the appropriate choice. The data does not support any other interpretation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is significantly faster. It scores 23832, which is 317.2% higher than the Intel Iris Pro P6300’s score of 5712.

Q: How do their overall performance percentiles compare?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 33, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M’s 31. This indicates that while the GTX 980M has a higher peak score, the Iris Pro is closer to the median performance of all GPUs in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M uses 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses system-shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system-dependent.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The GTX 980M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, featuring 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The Iris Pro P6300 is based on Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, with no transistor count or die size listed in the data.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The GTX 980M’s version is higher, offering more advanced feature levels.

Q: What is the TDP of the Intel Iris Pro P6300?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has a TDP of 15 W. No TDP is listed for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, which is a discrete MXM module and typically consumes significantly more power.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is a discrete GPU based on the GM204 chip, utilizing the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The large, power-hungry die is designed for maximum throughput, evidenced by its 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs).

In contrast, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is an integrated GPU built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a more advanced 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The data lists no transistor count or die size for this chip, underscoring its nature as a component embedded within a larger processor. Its execution resources are far more modest, with 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The architecture is optimized for low power consumption and integration, not raw compute density.

The memory architectures also differ drastically. The GTX 980M has a dedicated 256-bit memory bus connected to 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, yielding a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. This dedicated, high-bandwidth pool is critical for performance. The Iris Pro P6300, however, has no dedicated memory; it relies on a system-shared memory pool, with its bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means its performance is bottlenecked by the system RAM and bus, a typical limitation for IGPs. The production status for both is listed as "End-of-life," and their release dates are within a month of each other in late 2014, with the Intel part releasing on September 4th and the NVIDIA part on October 6th.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M and Intel Iris Pro P6300 reveal stark contrasts in nearly every measurable field. The process node differs, with NVIDIA using a 28 nm TSMC process and Intel using a 14 nm Intel process. The GTX 980M’s base clock is 1038 MHz with a boost clock of 1127 MHz, while the Iris Pro P6300 runs at a much lower 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost. Memory is another major differentiator: the GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Iris Pro uses system-shared memory, with the bandwidth listed as "System Dependent."

The compute resources are vastly different. The GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Iris Pro P6300 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. This leads to substantial differences in theoretical performance rates. The GTX 980M achieves a pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s, compared to the Iris Pro’s 4.800 GPixel/s and 38.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also lopsided: 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M versus 614.4 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro.

The TDP is a critical point of difference: the Intel part is rated at 15 W, while no TDP is listed for the NVIDIA part. The GTX 980M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Iris Pro is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the GTX 980M and "Motherboard Dependent" for the Iris Pro. The GTX 980M supports a higher DirectX version (12_1 vs 11_1), OpenGL 4.6 vs 4.4, and Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison in the data set includes a single test: Geekbench OpenCL. This benchmark measures general-purpose compute performance on the GPU, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 23832, while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 scores 5712. The delta is a massive 317.2% in favor of the GTX 980M. This score is more than four times higher, indicating a fundamental performance chasm.

While the GTX 980M has a broader set of benchmark scores, including a Passmark G3D score of 7338 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 17703, the Iris Pro P6300 only has the one OpenCL score. However, the GTX 980M’s average benchmark score across all its tests is 5308. This is actually lower than the Iris Pro’s average score of 5712. This discrepancy is explained by the GTX 980M’s inclusion of older API tests, such as Passmark DirectX 9 (score 125) and DirectX 10 (score 35), which drag down its average. The Iris Pro’s percentile rank of 33 versus the GTX 980M’s 31 further reflects this, as the GTX 980M’s average is depressed by legacy tests.

The nearest rivals for each GPU provide context. The GTX 980M’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, which is only 0.2% slower in average score. The Iris Pro P6300’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, which is 0.1% slower. This shows that in terms of average performance, the GTX 980M sits in a group of low-end discrete parts, while the Iris Pro sits in a slightly higher performance bracket, primarily due to its single, strong OpenCL score.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins decisively in any scenario that leverages raw compute throughput. Its massive lead in the OpenCL benchmark, along with its dedicated high-bandwidth GDDR5 memory, makes it the clear choice for 3D gaming, CAD applications, video editing, and any GPU-accelerated compute workload. The data shows it is 317.2% faster than the Intel solution in the one test where they are directly compared. Its higher pixel rate (72.13 GPixel/s vs 4.800 GPixel/s) and texture rate (108.2 GTexel/s vs 38.40 GTexel/s) further solidify its dominance in graphics-intensive tasks. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 also provides access to more modern APIs.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 wins in the domain of power efficiency and system integration. With a TDP of only 15 W, it is designed for thin-and-light laptops or embedded systems where power draw and thermal output are critical constraints. It has no dedicated memory, instead using system-shared memory, which simplifies system design and reduces cost. Its performance, while far below the GTX 980M, is still sufficient for basic desktop tasks, video playback, and light productivity. Its 33rd percentile ranking, slightly higher than the GTX 980M’s 31st, suggests that in the broader ecosystem of all GPUs, its performance profile is more representative of the median. It is the winner for any use case that values low power consumption and integration over absolute performance.