GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing: a dedicated, workstation-oriented discrete card versus an integrated processor graphics solution. The benchmark data provides a clear, if narrow, picture of their comparative performance, with the Quadro K4000 holding a decisive advantage in the single shared test while the Intel part counters with superior power efficiency and a more modern manufacturing process. The data suggests that these are not direct competitors but rather solutions for entirely different computing environments.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between the two products is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6,816, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5,712. This translates to a 19.3% performance advantage for the NVIDIA part in this compute-oriented test. This is a substantial margin, indicating that for raw general-purpose GPU compute workloads, the dedicated NVIDIA solution is significantly more capable.

To contextualize this delta, consider where each GPU sits among its nearest rivals. The Quadro K4000's average benchmark score across all tests is 5,982, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, scores nearly identically at 5,986 (a -0.1% delta), showing that the desktop K4000 and its mobile sibling are effectively neck-and-neck. Even more telling is its comparison to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, which scores 5,996 (a -0.2% delta). This implies that in the specific metric of average benchmark score, the professional-grade K4000 from 2013 is statistically tied with a much newer, higher-end server part, which likely reflects the limitations of the benchmark suite rather than real-world equivalence.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300, with an average score of 5,712, sits just below the K4000 in the 33rd percentile. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, which scores 5,721 (a -0.1% delta), making the two virtually indistinguishable in this metric. The data shows a slight win for the Intel part over the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, which scores 5,691 (a 0.4% delta in Intel's favor). The largest gap in Intel's rival list is against the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, where the Iris Pro is 1.9% ahead with a score of 5,604 for the Quadro. While the Intel iGPU holds its own against these older discrete mobile parts, it still trails the K4000 by nearly 20% in the OpenCL test, a gap that is significant for any compute-heavy task.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 6,816 compared to the Intel Iris Pro P6300's 5,712, giving the NVIDIA part a 19.3% lead.

Q: How does the Iris Pro P6300 compare to other discrete GPUs?

A: The data shows it is competitive with older entry-level discrete parts. Its average score of 5,712 is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5,721) and is 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5,691).

Q: What is the performance difference between the two GPUs regarding their overall standing?

A: The Quadro K4000 sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro P6300 sits in the 33rd percentile. Despite the K4000's higher raw score, their percentile rankings are very close, suggesting that both are near the lower-midrange of the performance spectrum.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has a significantly higher pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s, compared to the Intel Iris Pro P6300's 4.800 GPixel/s. This suggests the K4000 is better suited for tasks that involve heavy pixel processing, such as high-resolution rendering.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has a TDP of 15 W, which is drastically lower than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000's 80 W. This makes the Intel solution far more power-efficient.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Iris Pro P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), but only OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part offers newer versions of OpenGL and Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on vastly different architectures and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is based on the GK106 chip, using the Kepler architecture, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node is older compared to Intel's 14 nm process used for the Iris Pro P6300, which is based on the Broadwell GT3e chip and falls under Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture. The newer 14nm node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage in terms of transistor density and power efficiency.

The compute resources are starkly different. The Quadro K4000 is equipped with 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster output units (ROPs). In contrast, the Intel Iris Pro P6300 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. This configuration means the NVIDIA part has double the shader count and four times the ROPs, explaining its superior fill rates and raw compute throughput (FP32 of 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS). The low ROP count on the Intel part is a significant bottleneck for pixel-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture also highlights their differing roles. The Quadro K4000 features a dedicated 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, providing 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro P6300 relies on System Shared memory, with its bandwidth being "System Dependent." This means the Intel GPU's performance is heavily reliant on the system's main memory speed and configuration, while the NVIDIA card has its own high-speed dedicated pool. The K4000's memory clock is listed as 1404 MHz (or 5.6 Gbps effective), while the Intel part's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 800 MHz.

The Verdict

The performance data presents a clear verdict for compute-oriented tasks: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior performer, with a 19.3% lead in the sole head-to-head OpenCL benchmark. Its dedicated memory and higher shader and ROP counts provide a significant advantage in raw throughput. For any application that requires consistent, high-level GPGPU compute or heavy rasterization, the data unequivocally favors the Quadro.

However, the verdict is not one-sided. The Intel Iris Pro P6300's 15 W TDP is a massive advantage over the Quadro's 80 W, making it the only viable choice for power-constrained or fanless systems. Its integration into the CPU also eliminates the need for a separate expansion card. Therefore, the choice depends entirely on the use case. If the priority is maximum compute performance in a workstation with a dedicated power budget, the Quadro K4000 is the clear winner. If the priority is energy efficiency and integration in a compact or mobile system where the iGPU's performance is sufficient, the Iris Pro P6300 is the logical selection. The data does not suggest they compete for the same slot; it suggests they serve different masters.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturer differs, with NVIDIA producing the Quadro K4000 and Intel producing the Iris Pro P6300. The architecture is fundamentally different: Kepler versus Generation 8.0. The process node is also different, with the NVIDIA part at 28 nm and the Intel part at 14 nm. The transistor count is only listed for the NVIDIA part at 2,540 million on a 221 mm² die, while the Intel part's figures are null in the data.

Memory is a major differentiator: the Quadro K4000 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the Iris Pro P6300 uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus and System Dependent bandwidth. The shading units differ (768 vs. 384), as do the TMUs (64 vs. 48) and ROPs (24 vs. 6). The pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s vs. 4.800 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s vs. 38.40 GTexel/s) are both higher on the NVIDIA part. The FP32 compute is also higher on the NVIDIA part at 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics are also distinct. The Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W, is a Single-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Iris Pro P6300 has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with no power connectors or suggested PSU. The bus interface differs, with the NVIDIA part using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the Intel part using a Ring Bus. The display outputs are specific to the NVIDIA card (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the Intel part's outputs are Motherboard Dependent. Finally, the API support differs in OpenGL (4.6 vs. 4.4) and Vulkan (1.2.175 vs. 1.0), while DirectX support is similar (12 (11_0) vs. 12 (11_1)).

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark and specification data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins in the domain of raw graphics and compute performance. Its 19.3% advantage in OpenCL, combined with higher pixel and texture rates, makes it the clear choice for tasks like 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and video processing where dedicated memory bandwidth and high shader counts are critical. Its support for newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions also suggests better long-term compatibility with modern applications.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 wins decisively in the domain of power efficiency and system integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 80 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable laptops, all-in-one systems, or any build where heat and power draw are primary concerns. As an IGP, it requires no additional hardware beyond the CPU, simplifying system design. While its raw scores are lower, its performance is not far behind older discrete mobile parts like the GTX 670MX (a -0.1% delta), showing it can handle light gaming and general acceleration tasks adequately. The choice is not about which is "better," but which metric, performance or efficiency, is more important for the user's specific workload and system constraints.