GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL results show the NVIDIA Quadro K620M ahead by 4.3%, scoring 5957 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5712. That is a single decisive win for the NVIDIA part, with no benchmark categories where the Intel solution takes the lead. While a 4.3% margin is not a rout, it is consistent across the only available data point, indicating the Quadro holds a real, if modest, performance advantage in compute workloads.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this picture. The Quadro K620M sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro P6300 sits just one point lower at the 33rd percentile. In practical terms, the Quadro's score places it between the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.2% delta), meaning it trades blows with those mobile parts. The Intel Iris Pro, by contrast, is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, -0.1% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, 0.4% delta). The Quadro also edges out the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 0.5%, while the Iris Pro trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.9%, that last gap is the largest delta among any of the nearest rivals for either card, suggesting the Iris Pro is closer to the lower end of its competitive set than the Quadro is to its own.

The raw compute figures back up the benchmark result. The Quadro delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is 40.5% higher than the Iris Pro's 614.4 GFLOPS. Yet the Intel part counters with a higher texture rate: 38.40 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, a 2.1x advantage. The pixel rate tells the opposite story, with the Quadro at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s for the Iris Pro, a margin of roughly 87%. These mixed signals suggest the two GPUs are optimized for different types of work, with the Quadro favoring pixel-bound and general compute tasks while the Iris Pro leans into texture-heavy operations.

# The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K620M. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, posts a higher FP32 figure, and achieves a better percentile ranking. For anyone whose primary concern is raw compute performance in a mobile or embedded form factor, the Quadro is the safer choice. Its 4.3% benchmark lead might seem small, but it is consistent with a 40.5% advantage in theoretical FP32 throughput, meaning the benchmark gap likely understates the difference in compute-heavy tasks.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is not without merit. Its texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s is more than double the Quadro's, and it does so within a 15 W TDP, half the Quadro's 30 W envelope. For workloads that are texture-bound or for systems where power draw is the limiting factor, the Iris Pro could be the better fit. The benchmark data does not capture texture performance directly, so the 4.3% OpenCL win should not be read as a universal verdict.

In short: pick the Quadro K620M for compute and pixel throughput; pick the Iris Pro P6300 for texture throughput and lower power consumption. The benchmark data alone favors NVIDIA, but the architectural trade-offs tell a more nuanced story.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957, which is 4.3% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5712.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in FP32 compute performance?

A: The Quadro K620M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS, which is 40.5% higher than the Iris Pro P6300's 614.4 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the difference in texture fill rate?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s, which is more than double the Quadro K620M's 17.98 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s, which is approximately 87% higher than the Intel Iris Pro P6300's 4.800 GPixel/s.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro K620M has a 30 W TDP, the Intel part draws half the power.

Q: Where does each GPU rank among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro K620M sits at the 34th percentile, while the Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on process technology and memory architecture. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, using 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses Intel's 14 nm process, though its transistor count and die size are not specified. The Quadro has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the Iris Pro runs at a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 800 MHz, a significant difference in raw clock speeds, though the Intel part compensates with a different architecture.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The Quadro has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth that is System Dependent. This means the Quadro's memory performance is fixed and predictable, while the Iris Pro's is entirely dependent on the host system's memory configuration.

The shading unit counts are identical at 384, but the texture mapping units differ dramatically: the Quadro has 16 TMUs, while the Iris Pro has 48. The ROP counts are closer, with the Quadro at 8 and the Iris Pro at 6. The power envelope favors Intel heavily: 15 W versus 30 W. The Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and is an MXM Module, while the Iris Pro is an IGP using a Ring Bus. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for the Quadro and Motherboard Dependent for the Iris Pro.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro K620M uses the GM108S chip based on Maxwell architecture, from the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx200M) generation. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip based on Generation 8.0 architecture, from the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) generation. The Quadro is manufactured by TSMC at 28 nm, while the Iris Pro is manufactured by Intel at 14 nm, a two-generation process advantage for Intel.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels: the Quadro supports 11_0, while the Iris Pro supports 11_1. OpenGL support favors NVIDIA, with the Quadro at 4.6 versus the Iris Pro's 4.4. Vulkan support also differs: the Quadro supports version 1.4, while the Iris Pro supports version 1.0. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, with the Quadro Maxwell-M as its successor. The Iris Pro has no listed predecessor or successor. The Quadro's memory operates at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Iris Pro's memory clock is System Shared. The transistor density of the Quadro is 13.2M per mm²; no equivalent figure exists for the Intel part.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620M wins in compute throughput, pixel fill rate, and memory bandwidth. Its 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is 40.5% ahead of the Iris Pro, and its 8.992 GPixel/s pixel rate is roughly 87% higher. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth means the Quadro never contends with the host system for memory access, making it the better choice for graphics workloads that are memory-sensitive or pixel-bound. Its higher base and boost clocks (1029 MHz and 1124 MHz versus 300 MHz and 800 MHz) also contribute to its compute advantage. The OpenCL benchmark confirms this: 5957 versus 5712, a 4.3% win.

The Intel Iris Pro P6300 wins on texture throughput, power efficiency, and integration. Its 38.40 GTexel/s texture rate is more than double the Quadro's 17.98 GTexel/s, making it the stronger part for texture-heavy workloads such as certain types of image processing or procedural generation. Its 15 W TDP is exactly half the Quadro's 30 W, which is a critical advantage in thermally constrained systems. As an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, it requires no separate memory and integrates directly into the motherboard, whereas the Quadro needs an MXM module and dedicated VRAM. The Iris Pro also supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), which could matter for specific API features.

The use-case split is clear: the Quadro K620M is for compute-focused, pixel-heavy tasks where dedicated memory and higher throughput matter more than power draw. The Iris Pro P6300 is for texture-bound workloads in low-power systems where the simplicity of an integrated solution outweighs raw compute performance. Neither GPU wins outright, but the benchmark data favors the Quadro for general-purpose compute.