Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they serve fundamentally different design goals. The database records a single direct head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K3100M posts a higher raw score. However, the broader benchmark landscape reveals a more nuanced picture, with the Iris Pro holding a better overall percentile ranking despite a lower average score across all recorded tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the only direct comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 points against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300’s 5712 points. This gives the Quadro a 7.2% advantage, a meaningful margin in compute-oriented workloads. The OpenCL result reflects the Quadro’s substantially larger compute core count and dedicated memory bandwidth, both of which are detailed in the architecture section below.

Yet the aggregate benchmark data tells a different story. The Iris Pro’s average benchmark score is 5712, derived entirely from its single OpenCL result. The Quadro’s average is 5154, pulled down by additional test scores: its Geekbench Metal result is 3823, and its Vulkan score is 5484. While the Quadro wins the OpenCL head-to-head, its Metal score trails its own OpenCL score by 2331 points, and its Vulkan score sits 670 points below the OpenCL result. The Iris Pro, with no recorded Metal or Vulkan tests, does not face this multi-API variance.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Iris Pro sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro sits at the 30th percentile. This means that despite losing the direct OpenCL comparison, the Iris Pro outperforms a larger share of the overall GPU field when considering all recorded benchmarks. The Quadro’s wider scatter of scores across different APIs lowers its aggregate standing.

Examining nearest rivals clarifies each card’s competitive neighborhood. The Iris Pro’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, which averages 5721 points, a delta of just 0.1% below the Iris Pro. The GTX 550 Ti averages 5731, 0.3% higher, while the AMD Radeon HD 8790M scores 5691, 0.4% lower. The Quadro M500M trails by 1.9% at 5604. This cluster shows the Iris Pro trading blows with mid-range discrete GPUs from the same era, a strong result for an integrated solution.

The Quadro K3100M’s rivals hover around its 5154 average. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5161, a 0.1% gap, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, 1.1% higher. The GeForce GTX 760M averages 5236, 1.6% above the Quadro, and the AMD Radeon R7 240 trails at 5063, 1.8% lower. The Quadro’s rivals are all discrete mobile or desktop parts, and the margins are tight, suggesting the K3100M is positioned at the lower end of the discrete spectrum.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 6154 exceeds the Iris Pro’s 5712 by 442 points, a 7.2% lead. This advantage stems from the Quadro’s 768 shading units, double the Iris Pro’s 384, and its 64 texture mapping units against 48 for the Intel part. The Quadro also delivers 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 614.4 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro, a 76.5% higher theoretical peak. For applications that scale with shader count and raw floating-point operations, the Quadro is the clear choice.

The Quadro also wins on memory bandwidth. Its GDDR5 memory runs at 800 MHz with a 256-bit bus, producing 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with bandwidth listed as “System Dependent,” meaning performance varies with the host platform’s RAM configuration. In fixed scenarios, the Quadro’s dedicated memory provides predictable, high-throughput access that the Intel solution cannot match.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins on efficiency and integration. Its TDP is 15 W, compared to 75 W for the Quadro, a fivefold difference. This makes the Iris Pro suitable for ultra-portable or low-power designs, while the Quadro requires a larger thermal envelope and the MXM Module form factor. The Iris Pro also uses Intel’s 14 nm process, while the Quadro uses TSMC’s 28 nm process, giving Intel a density advantage despite the Quadro’s larger transistor count.

The Iris Pro leads in API support for DirectX, listing version 12 (11_1) against the Quadro’s 12 (11_0). It also matches the Quadro on OpenGL 4.4 versus 4.6, though the Quadro has a higher OpenGL version. For Vulkan, the Quadro lists 1.2.175 while the Iris Pro lists 1.0, giving NVIDIA a clear edge in modern Vulkan titles.

The percentile data adds another win for Intel. At the 33rd percentile, the Iris Pro ranks higher than the Quadro’s 30th percentile, meaning it beats a larger fraction of all GPUs in the database. This is notable because the Iris Pro achieves this with a single OpenCL score, while the Quadro’s average suffers from its lower Metal and Vulkan results.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip, built on Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The chip contains 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 raster output units. Its pixel rate is 4.800 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 38.40 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 614.4 GFLOPS. The GPU operates at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. Memory is system shared, with no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth is system dependent. The bus interface is Ring Bus, and display outputs are motherboard dependent.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip, part of NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The GPU has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. Its pixel rate is 11.30 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 45.18 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The base and boost clocks are both 706 MHz. Memory is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 800 MHz, with 3.2 Gbps effective data rate. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0), and display outputs are portable device dependent.

The transistor count difference is stark: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors versus no listed count for the Intel part. The die size for the Quadro is 294 mm², while Intel’s die size is not recorded. The Quadro’s transistor density of 12.0M per mm² is lower than what Intel’s 14 nm process would typically achieve, but the Intel chip’s density is not listed.

The TDP difference is a major architectural distinction. The Iris Pro draws 15 W, while the Quadro draws 75 W. This reflects the Intel part’s integration into a CPU package versus the Quadro’s discrete MXM module design. The Quadro has no power connectors, relying on the MXM slot, while the Iris Pro is an IGP with no separate power requirement.

API support differs as well. The Iris Pro lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro’s higher OpenGL and Vulkan versions give it better support for modern cross-platform APIs, while the Iris Pro’s DirectX version is marginally higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has an average benchmark score of 5712, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average score of 5154.

Q: Did the Quadro K3100M win the direct head-to-head test?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3100M scored 6154 against the Iris Pro’s 5712, a 7.2% advantage.

Q: Why does the Iris Pro rank at a higher percentile than the Quadro?

A: The Iris Pro sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 30th percentile. The Quadro’s average is lowered by its additional Metal score of 3823 and Vulkan score of 5484, which are below its OpenCL result.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, double the Iris Pro’s 384 shading units.

Q: What are the TDP values for each card?

A: The Iris Pro has a TDP of 15 W, while the Quadro has a TDP of 75 W.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the stronger compute performer, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is the more efficient and better-rounded part in the database’s overall rankings.

Choose the Quadro K3100M if the workload is compute-heavy and memory-bandwidth sensitive. Its OpenCL score of 6154 leads the Iris Pro by 7.2%, and its 102.4 GB/s dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth provides consistent throughput that system-shared memory cannot guarantee. The Quadro’s 768 shading units and 1,084.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance make it suitable for tasks that scale with raw shader throughput, such as rendering and simulation. Its higher Vulkan version (1.2.175) and OpenGL 4.6 support also make it the better fit for modern cross-platform graphics APIs.

Choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 if power efficiency and overall database standing matter more than peak compute. Its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the Quadro’s 75 W, making it ideal for thin-and-light systems. Despite losing the direct OpenCL test, the Iris Pro ranks at the 33rd percentile versus the Quadro’s 30th, meaning it outperforms a larger share of the GPU field. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) version is also slightly higher than the Quadro’s 12 (11_0).

The Quadro’s nearest rivals, including the GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 and Quadro 4000M at 5211, all score within 1.6% of its average, indicating it sits in a crowded mid-range discrete segment. The Iris Pro’s rivals, such as the GTX 670MX at 5721 and GTX 550 Ti at 5731, are within 0.3% of its score, showing it competes effectively with older discrete parts despite being integrated.

For mobile workstations where compute accuracy and memory bandwidth are critical, the Quadro K3100M is the data-backed choice. For ultra-portable devices where power draw and integration are paramount, the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 offers a superior efficiency profile and a better percentile rank. Both are end-of-life parts, but their recorded benchmarks still inform legacy system comparisons.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | GK104 |

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 800 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 48 | 64 |

| Raster Output Units | 6 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.800 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.40 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 614.4 GFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Version | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Version | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.0 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Not listed | Quadro Maxwell-M |