Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it shows a clear, single win for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. The Intel part scores 5712 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points. That is a delta of 9.6% in favor of the Intel solution. In practical terms, the Intel's integrated graphics outpaces this dedicated mobile NVIDIA GPU by nearly a tenth of its own score.

Contextualizing against their nearest rivals makes the picture sharper. The Iris Pro P6300 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721 points) and within 0.3% of the GTX 550 Ti (5731 points), effectively trading blows with those discrete parts. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691 points) and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604 points). The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, lands 0.5% below the GeForce GTX 760M (5236 points) and 1.4% below the GeForce 940M (5284 points), while beating the Radeon R7 M260X (5161 points) by 1% and the Quadro K3100M (5154 points) by 1.1%. So the Intel part is not just faster in the direct comparison; it is clustered with a higher tier of rival GPUs.

The percentile data reinforces the separation. The Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile. That three-point gap is modest, but it matches the measured 9.6% performance difference. In the database's ranking, the Intel integrated solution occupies a slightly higher position, despite its radically different design goals.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the only benchmark category in the database: Geekbench OpenCL. That makes it the outright victor in raw compute throughput as measured by that test. Its 5712 score comes from 384 shading units running at a base clock of 300 MHz with an 800 MHz boost, producing a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s and a fill rate of 4.800 GPixel/s. The FP32 throughput is 614.4 GFLOPS. These numbers are competitive with, and in some cases ahead of, the discrete mobile GPUs in its rival set.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no benchmark win in the recorded data. Its 5211 Geekbench OpenCL score is lower than the Intel part's 5712. However, the Quadro does hold advantages in several specification categories that do not translate into a benchmark victory here. It has a larger memory footprint with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The Quadro's pixel rate is higher at 6.650 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s, and its FP32 throughput is slightly higher at 638.4 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS. Its ROP count of 32 far exceeds the Intel part's 6, which typically benefits fill-rate-heavy workloads, though the recorded OpenCL data does not show such a workload.

The use case split is therefore clear from the data: the Intel part wins general compute workloads as measured by OpenCL, while the Quadro offers structural advantages in dedicated memory bandwidth and pixel throughput that the benchmark does not capture. The Intel part's higher TMU count, 48 versus 56, actually favors the Quadro on texture units, but the Intel part's higher texture rate, 38.40 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s, shows the clock advantage outweighs the unit deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712, which is 9.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's 5211.

Q: How does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721), 0.3% behind the GTX 550 Ti (5731), 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691), and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604).

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 760M (5236), 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M (5284), 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M260X (5161), and 1.1% ahead of the Quadro K3100M (5154).

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each GPU?

A: The Intel part has a pixel rate of 4.800 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s. The Quadro 4000M has a pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 ranks at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M ranks at the 30th percentile.

Specification Differences

The process node differs substantially. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro's chip, GF104, contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die with a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². The Intel part's chip is Broadwell GT3e, with no transistor or die size data recorded.

Clock behavior diverges. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. The Quadro 4000M has no recorded base or boost clock for the GPU core, but its memory runs at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective throughput.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system shared memory with system shared size, type, and bus width, and system dependent bandwidth. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute units differ in count and arrangement. Intel has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. NVIDIA has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

The measured rates reflect the unit and clock mix. Intel produces 4.800 GPixel/s pixel rate and 38.40 GTexel/s texture rate. NVIDIA produces 6.650 GPixel/s pixel rate and 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate. FP32 output is 614.4 GFLOPS for Intel and 638.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power and physical dimensions differ sharply. The Intel part has a TDP of 15 W and uses an IGP slot width with a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and a MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel and portable device dependent for NVIDIA.

API support varies by vendor generation. Intel supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan entry.

Release timing places them in different eras. The Intel part was released on 2014-09-04, while the Quadro 4000M was released on 2011-02-21. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The Intel part has no predecessor or successor recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 belongs to the Generation 8.0 architecture, specifically the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation. Its chip, Broadwell GT3e, is built on Intel's 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The architecture integrates the GPU on the same physical package as the CPU, hence the Ring Bus interface and the system shared memory design. The 384 shading units on this generation architecture produce a balanced compute profile, with 48 TMUs driving a 38.40 GTexel/s texture rate. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0, reflecting its integrated, low-power design point at a 15 W TDP.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is a Fermi architecture part, part of the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. Its GF104 chip is manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process, using a 332 mm² die with 1,950 million transistors. This is a discrete mobile GPU on an MXM Module with a MXM-B (3.0) interface, drawing 100 W. The Fermi generation uses a GDDR5 memory subsystem with 2 GB on a 256-bit bus delivering 80.00 GB/s, a stark contrast to the Intel part's system dependent memory. The 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs produce a 6.650 GPixel/s pixel rate and 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate.

The architectural split is essentially integrated versus discrete. The Intel part depends on the host system's memory, making its bandwidth system dependent, while the Quadro has dedicated VRAM with fixed bandwidth. The Intel part has fewer ROPs, 6 versus 32, which limits pixel fill relative to the Quadro. The Quadro's higher pixel rate, 6.650 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s, confirms this. Conversely, the Intel part's higher texture rate, 38.40 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s, comes from fewer TMUs, 48 versus 56, running at higher effective clocks.

The Intel architecture supports Vulkan 1.0, while the Quadro's Fermi architecture has no Vulkan support recorded. OpenGL support favors NVIDIA at 4.6 versus Intel's 4.4. DirectX support is effectively even, with Intel at 12 (11_1) and NVIDIA at 12 (11_0). The Intel part's 14 nm process versus the Quadro's 40 nm process explains the massive power difference, 15 W versus 100 W, and likely contributes to the Intel part's higher clock-driven texture rate despite fewer TMUs. The Quadro's higher transistor count, 1,950 million versus no recorded count for Intel, reflects a larger, more complex die for a discrete memory controller and wider ROP partition.

In the recorded OpenCL benchmark, the Intel architecture's higher clocks and texture rate win out over the Quadro's larger memory bus and ROP count. The 9.6% delta in the Intel part's favor shows that, for compute workloads, the Broadwell GT3e design with 384 shading units at up to 800 MHz outperforms the Fermi GF104 with 336 shading units, even with the Quadro's dedicated memory advantages. The database's percentile rankings, 33rd for Intel versus 30th for NVIDIA, reflect that result across the broader GPU landscape.