Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 represent two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics: a dedicated, high-performance workstation GPU versus an integrated processor graphics solution. The benchmark data shows the Quadro K4000M winning the only head-to-head comparison, but the story is more nuanced when you consider their distinct architectures, power envelopes, and intended use cases. This analysis breaks down where each part excels based strictly on the available facts.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the clear winner in raw compute performance. In the sole Geekbench OpenCL benchmark available, it scores 5986 compared to the Intel Iris Pro P6300’s 5712, a 4.8% advantage. This makes it the better choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL acceleration, such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulations, or video processing. Its dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth also gives it a massive advantage in memory-intensive tasks, whereas the Intel part relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth that is System Dependent.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300, however, wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro’s 100 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable systems where battery life and thermal management are paramount. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0), giving it a slight edge in API compatibility for newer titles that use the higher feature level. For users who need basic graphics acceleration without the cost, size, or power draw of a discrete GPU, the Intel part is the pragmatic choice.

The data also shows that the Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro P6300 is at the 33rd percentile. This means both are in the lower-middle tier of overall performance, but the Quadro edges out the Intel part in absolute terms. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4100 (a 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (0.1% faster), indicating it is competitive with entry-level workstation cards. The Intel’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (0.1% faster) and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (1.9% slower), showing it trades blows with older mid-range mobile GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is vast. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². This is a mature, power-hungry design from 2012, designed for sustained professional workloads. The Intel Iris Pro P6300, in contrast, uses the Broadwell GT3e chip with Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture, built on a more modern 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The fact pack does not list a transistor count or die size for the Intel part, but the 14 nm node implies a more efficient design.

The Quadro’s compute configuration is substantially larger: 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). It runs at a fixed 601 MHz base and boost clock, with memory clocked at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs, with a base clock of 300 MHz that boosts to 800 MHz. Despite the lower clock, the Intel’s 800 MHz boost helps it close the gap in some tests, but its ROP count is severely limited, which hampers pixel fill rate.

The memory subsystem is where the two diverge completely. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has no dedicated memory; it uses System Shared memory, with the bus width also listed as System Shared and bandwidth as System Dependent. This means the Intel part’s performance is heavily reliant on the host system’s RAM speed and dual-channel configuration, which can vary wildly between laptops. The Quadro’s fixed memory bandwidth is a major advantage for consistent performance.

Power delivery and physical form also differ. The Quadro is a 100 W MXM Module with no power connectors listed, using an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. It is a replaceable, discrete module designed for larger workstations. The Intel part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 15 W TDP, connected via a Ring Bus, and is soldered onto the motherboard. Its display outputs are Motherboard Dependent, whereas the Quadro’s are Portable Device Dependent, meaning both are tied to the host system’s design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 and the Intel Iris Pro P6300 scores 5712. The Quadro wins by 4.8%. This is a modest but definite lead in a compute-oriented benchmark. To put this in context, the Quadro’s score is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5987 (a 0% delta). It also mirrors the performance of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, which scores 5996, though that is a -0.2% delta, meaning the Quadro is slightly slower.

The Intel part’s score of 5712 places it just below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731, -0.3% delta). It is faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, 0.4% delta) and notably faster than the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604, 1.9% delta). This tells us that despite being an integrated solution, the Iris Pro P6300 is not embarrassingly behind dedicated GPUs from its era; it is competitive with entry-level discrete cards.

In terms of theoretical peak rates, the Quadro K4000M delivers 12.02 GPixel/s of pixel fill rate and 48.08 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, with 1,153.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Intel part manages 4.800 GPixel/s, 38.40 GTexel/s, and 614.4 GFLOPS of FP32. The Quadro is 2.5 times faster in pixel throughput and nearly double in FP32 compute, but only 25% faster in texture rate. This suggests the Intel part’s TMU configuration is relatively strong compared to its ROPs, which may help in certain shader-heavy workloads.

The wins tally shows the Quadro taking 1 win and the Intel taking 0 wins in head-to-head benchmarks. This is a one-test sample, but it aligns with the specification differences: the Quadro has more of everything that matters for raw performance, except for a lower DirectX feature level and a much higher power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is faster, scoring 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Intel Iris Pro P6300’s 5712, a 4.8% lead.

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

A: The Intel part is 0.1% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX and 0.3% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti. It is 0.4% faster than the AMD Radeon HD 8790M and 1.9% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro M500M.

Q: What is the main advantage of the Intel Iris Pro P6300?

A: Its 15 W TDP is drastically lower than the Quadro’s 100 W, making it ideal for thin, power-efficient laptops. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a higher feature level than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have dedicated memory?

A: Yes, it has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, which is a significant disadvantage.

Q: Are these GPUs still relevant today?

A: Both are listed as End-of-life. The Quadro K4000M was released in 2012, and the Intel Iris Pro P6300 in 2014. Their percentile ranks (34th and 33rd respectively) indicate they are in the lower-middle tier of all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s, which is far higher than the Intel Iris Pro P6300’s 4.800 GPixel/s. This is due to the Quadro’s 32 ROPs versus the Intel’s 6 ROPs.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the key specifications where the two parts differ, using data directly from the fact pack.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | Intel Iris Pro P6300 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 601 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 601 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 960 | 384 |

| TMUs | 80 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.02 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 48.08 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1,153.9 GFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2014-09-04 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: if you need maximum compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the superior choice. It wins the only benchmark, has a 4.8% higher score, and offers 4x the memory bandwidth, 2.5x the pixel rate, and 1.9x the FP32 throughput compared to the Intel Iris Pro P6300. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro W4100 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, which are both entry-level workstation cards, confirming its position as a capable, if dated, professional solution. For users running OpenCL-heavy applications on a mobile workstation, the Quadro is the only option that provides consistent, predictable performance.

However, the Intel Iris Pro P6300 is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP is a massive advantage for system builders targeting ultra-portable designs. The fact that it scores within 4.8% of a dedicated discrete GPU while drawing a fraction of the power confirms the efficiency of the 14 nm Broadwell architecture. It also supports a newer DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0), which may matter for certain modern games or applications. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 670MX and GTX 550 Ti, which are older mid-range parts, so it holds its own against dedicated GPUs from its generation.

The choice comes down to priorities. The Quadro K4000M is for users who need raw performance and dedicated VRAM, regardless of power cost. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is for users who prioritize battery life, low heat, and system integration over raw speed. Based on the benchmark data, the Quadro is the performance winner, but the Intel part is the efficiency winner. Neither is a modern powerhouse, but each serves a distinct purpose in the mobile landscape. For a workstation replacement laptop, the Quadro is the logical pick. For a thin-and-light Ultrabook, the Iris Pro is the only one of the two that makes sense.