Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 represent two very different approaches to graphics processing, one as a dedicated discrete card and the other as an integrated solution. The recorded data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, performance advantage for the NVIDIA part, but the story is more nuanced than a simple win/loss tally. Examining the benchmark results, architectural designs, and specification sheets reveals that each component is tailored for a distinct use case, and their respective strengths align with their intended roles in a system.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the database, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the outright performance winner, taking the sole recorded head-to-head benchmark. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K620 scored 6693, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scored 5712. This represents a 17.2% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that indicates superior raw compute throughput in this particular workload. The K620's victory is not just a matter of a single test, its average benchmark score of 6282 also places it in a higher percentile bracket (36th percentile) compared to the Intel part's 33rd percentile.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, despite losing the direct comparison, holds its own in terms of its specific architectural role. Its win condition is not about raw performance but about integration and efficiency. As an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with a 15 W TDP, it is designed for systems where space, power consumption, and thermal output are critical constraints. Its performance is sufficient for general desktop tasks and light media consumption, and its "System Shared" memory architecture means it does not require a dedicated VRAM allocation, simplifying system design. The data suggests it is a capable solution for its purpose, but its performance ceiling is lower than a dedicated card. The K620, conversely, wins in scenarios where sustained, predictable performance is required, such as professional CAD or content creation applications that can leverage its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory and higher clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, it scored 6693, which is 17.2% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's score of 5712. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: What are the key differences in their memory configurations?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses a dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it relies on the system's main RAM, and its bandwidth is "System Dependent."

Q: Is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 more power efficient?

A: Yes, the data indicates a significant difference. The Intel IGP has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620 has a TDP of 45 W. This makes the Intel part far more suitable for low-power or mobile systems.

Q: What is the performance context for each GPU based on their percentile rankings?

A: The Quadro K620 sits in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, placing it slightly above the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, which is in the 33rd percentile. This suggests both are entry-level performers, but the K620 has a slight edge.

Q: Which GPU supports a more modern version of DirectX?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a newer feature level than the NVIDIA Quadro K620's support for DirectX 12 (11_0). However, the K620 supports newer versions of OpenGL (4.6 vs 4.4) and Vulkan (1.4 vs 1.0).

Q: How does the texture fill rate compare between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a higher texture fill rate at 38.40 GTexel/s, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K620's 26.98 GTexel/s. This is due to the Intel part having 48 TMUs versus the NVIDIA's 24, despite the NVIDIA's higher clock speeds.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 achieved a score of 6693, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 managed 5712. This yields a delta of 17.2% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is a substantial lead, suggesting that for OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro K620 is the clear choice. The margin indicates that the K620's dedicated memory and higher clock speeds (1058 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost) provide a tangible advantage over the Intel IGP's lower clocks (300 MHz base, 800 MHz boost) and shared memory setup.

This single benchmark result is a strong indicator of overall compute capability, but it is important to note that it represents only one type of workload. The Intel part's higher texture fill rate (38.40 GTexel/s vs 26.98 GTexel/s) hints that it might be more competitive in certain texture-bound tasks, but the database does not include a test to confirm this. The data we have points to a clear, if not universal, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K620, a win that is reflected in its higher average benchmark score of 6282 compared to the Intel's 5712.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs are fundamentally different in their specifications, reflecting their separate design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is a discrete, single-slot card with a 160 mm length and a TDP of 45 W. It requires no power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. Its memory is a dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed, a TDP of only 15 W, and no power connectors. Its memory is "System Shared," with a bus width and type also listed as "System Shared," and its bandwidth is "System Dependent."

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1058 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, with memory clocked at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Intel IGP has a base clock of just 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. In terms of core configuration, both have 384 shading units, but the NVIDIA card has 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the Intel part has 48 TMUs and only 6 ROPs. This imbalance explains the differing pixel and texture rates: the Quadro K620 has a pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s versus the Intel's 4.800 GPixel/s, while the Intel part has a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s versus the NVIDIA's 26.98 GTexel/s. The bus interface also differs, with the NVIDIA using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the Intel using a Ring Bus.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two is profound, as they come from different manufacturers and design eras. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 chip, using a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is based on the Generation 8.0 architecture, using the Broadwell GT3e chip, and is fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process. No transistor count or die size is listed for the Intel part.

The API support also differs. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel IGP supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. This indicates that while the Intel part has a slightly more advanced DirectX feature level, the NVIDIA card offers more modern support for OpenGL and Vulkan. The NVIDIA card's architecture is dedicated to discrete graphics with its own memory pool, while the Intel IGP is designed to be a functional, low-power component sharing system resources. The generation field also lists the NVIDIA part under "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)", which is a slight misnomer given its Maxwell architecture, but the Intel part is clearly placed in the "HD Graphics-W (Broadwell)" generation.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on the user's needs. For anyone requiring dedicated, consistent graphics performance for professional applications, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the superior option. Its 17.2% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with its dedicated 2 GB of VRAM and higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs 4.800 GPixel/s), makes it better suited for tasks that demand reliable compute throughput. Its higher average benchmark score of 6282, compared to 5712 for the Intel part, reinforces this conclusion. The K620 is the only choice for workloads where the 45 W TDP and single-slot footprint are acceptable trade-offs for this level of performance.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is the appropriate selection for systems where power efficiency and integration are paramount. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the NVIDIA's 45 W, making it ideal for thin-and-light laptops or compact desktops. While it trails in compute performance, its higher texture fill rate (38.40 GTexel/s) and more advanced DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level suggest it may handle certain graphical effects or texture-heavy tasks adequately. The data shows it is not a performance part, but it is a sufficient and highly efficient one. The verdict is simple: choose the Quadro K620 for dedicated performance, and the Iris Pro P6300 for integrated efficiency.