Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly in favor of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, which takes the sole recorded head-to-head test. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Intel part scores 5712 against the Quadro 4000's 4979, a 14.7% advantage. That single win gives the Intel integrated solution a 1-0 record in direct comparisons, and it also lands higher in the overall percentile ranking: the P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th.

The Intel part's nearest rivals in the database reinforce its position. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX by just 0.1% (5721 vs 5712) and the GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 0.3% (5731 vs 5731), while edging ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M by 0.4% and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.9%. Those margins place the P6300 in a tightly contested band where small score differences separate several products.

The Quadro 4000, by contrast, sits in a similar competitive cluster but from the other side. It leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB by 0.2% (4979 vs 4970), trails the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 0.4%, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.8%, and beats the AMD Radeon R7 M360 by 1%. The practical takeaway: the Iris Pro P6300 is the stronger performer in compute workloads, while the Quadro 4000, despite its professional branding, falls behind in raw OpenCL throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture and a 14 nm process node fabricated by Intel itself. It is an integrated graphics processor, attached via a Ring Bus interface, and draws just 15 W. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, in contrast, uses the GF100 chip with the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It is a discrete, single-slot card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and a 142 W power draw, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W power supply.

The transistor and die data reflect the generational gap. The Quadro 4000 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The Intel part has no listed transistor count, die size, or density in the database, but its 14 nm process and integrated nature imply a far smaller footprint. The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The Intel P6300 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's RAM. The Quadro 4000 has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 pool on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, with memory clocked at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The Intel part has more shading units (384 vs 256) and more texture mapping units (48 vs 32), but far fewer ROPs (6 vs 32). That imbalance explains why the Intel part posts a much higher texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s) but a lower pixel rate (4.800 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s). Floating-point throughput favors Intel as well: 614.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 486.4 GFLOPS. Neither GPU lists RT cores or tensor cores, and neither lists FP16 performance.

The API support differs subtly. The Intel P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and has no listed Vulkan support. The Quadro's older Fermi architecture limits it to the lower DirectX feature level, though it has a more recent OpenGL implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. That is a 14.7% difference in favor of the Intel part.

Q: How does the Intel P6300 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The P6300 is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX and GTX 550 Ti, trails them by 0.1% and 0.3% respectively, and leads the AMD Radeon HD 8790M by 0.4% and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.9%.

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Intel P6300 relies on system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth is system dependent. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The Quadro 4000 has the higher pixel rate at 7.600 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s for the Intel part. The Intel P6300 has the higher texture rate at 38.40 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel P6300 is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Quadro 4000 is a discrete card with a 142 W TDP, one 6-pin power connector, and a suggested 300 W power supply.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 lists Vulkan 1.0 support. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no listed Vulkan support in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel P6300 uses a 14 nm process from Intel, while the Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm process from TSMC. The Intel chip is the Broadwell GT3e with Generation 8.0 architecture; the Quadro uses the GF100 with Fermi architecture. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while the Quadro is a single-slot discrete card using PCIe 2.0 x16.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The Intel P6300 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz, with system-shared memory. The Quadro 4000 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro has fixed memory specs: 2 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus, and 89.86 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has no fixed memory size, type, or bus width, only "System Shared."

The compute unit counts differ: Intel has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs; NVIDIA has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA (7.600 vs 4.800 GPixel/s), texture rate favors Intel (38.40 vs 15.20 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput favors Intel (614.4 vs 486.4 GFLOPS). The Quadro 4000 has a 3,100 million transistor count on a 529 mm² die with 5.9M transistors per mm²; the Intel part has none of these listed.

Power and physical specs diverge: Intel draws 15 W with no slot width listed beyond "IGP," while NVIDIA draws 142 W, is single-slot, requires a 6-pin connector, and has a 300 W suggested PSU. Dimensions exist only for the Quadro: 241 mm length, 111 mm height, 20 mm width. Display outputs differ: Intel is motherboard dependent, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head test is the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and it is a decisive win for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. The Intel part scores 5712, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979, and the delta is 14.7% in Intel's favor. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that places the integrated Intel GPU clearly ahead of the professional discrete card in compute throughput.

The Intel part also holds a percentile advantage. Its 33rd percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 29th percentile means that, within the database's full GPU population, the P6300 sits higher relative to its peers. The nearest-rival data amplifies the point. The Intel GPU's closest competitor, the GeForce GTX 670MX, averages 5721, only 0.1% higher. The Intel part is effectively tied with that card. The Quadro 4000's closest rival, the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, averages 4970, which the Quadro beats by just 0.2%.

Breaking down the architectural strengths explains the score gap. The Intel P6300's 384 shading units and 48 TMUs give it a 38.40 GTexel/s texture rate, more than double the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s. Its 614.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is 26% higher than the Quadro's 486.4 GFLOPS. Those advantages in raw compute resources translate directly to OpenCL performance. The Quadro's counterpoints are its 32 ROPs and 7.600 GPixel/s pixel rate, plus its dedicated 89.86 GB/s memory bandwidth, but those strengths do not manifest in the recorded OpenCL score.

The memory situation likely plays a role. The Intel part's system-shared memory means its bandwidth is system dependent, yet it still outperforms the Quadro's fixed 89.86 GB/s GDDR5 setup in this test. The Quadro's Fermi architecture, dating from 2010, may also limit its OpenCL efficiency relative to Intel's Generation 8.0 design from 2014. The release dates confirm the gap: the Quadro 4000 launched on November 1, 2010, while the Intel P6300 launched on September 4, 2014.

In practical terms, the database shows a clear hierarchy. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 in the only measured benchmark, with a 14.7% lead. The Intel part also sits in a stronger competitive position against its nearest rivals, with all four rivals within 1.9% of its score. The Quadro 4000, by contrast, has rivals that span a 1.0% range, and its absolute score is lower. The data indicates that for OpenCL compute workloads, the newer integrated Intel solution is the better choice, despite the Quadro's professional workstation pedigree and dedicated memory.