Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 manages 5,712. That is a delta of -70.1% for the Intel part — the Quadro M4000 is roughly 3.3 times faster in raw compute throughput. This is not a close contest; the gap is enormous and consistent with the fundamental differences in their designs.

Looking at the broader competitive context, the Intel Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5,712. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5,721, a -0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5,731, a -0.3% delta). The Intel part is essentially neck-and-neck with these older discrete mobile GPUs, which suggests that its integrated design punches above its weight class in compute workloads — but only up to a point.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000, by contrast, sits at the 32nd percentile with an average score of 5,467, which is actually lower than its OpenCL score. This discrepancy is telling: the M4000's average is dragged down by its performance in other tests, particularly Passmark DirectX 9 (113), Passmark DirectX 10 (33), and Passmark DirectX 11 (49). The M4000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon 610M (5,444, +0.4%), placing it in a similar performance tier to the Iris Pro when averaging across all tests — yet the OpenCL result tells a very different story.

The head-to-head data shows exactly one benchmark where both parts were measured under identical conditions, and the winner is unambiguous. The Quadro M4000 wins that single test, giving it a clean 1-0 record in direct comparisons. However, the benchmark suite for the M4000 includes 10 tests total, while the Iris Pro only has one — so the comparison is limited by data availability, not by the actual capabilities of either part.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins the only shared benchmark by a massive margin. In OpenCL compute, it delivers 19,118 points versus 5,712 for the Iris Pro. That translates to a workload where the M4000 would complete roughly three times as many parallel operations per second. For any compute-heavy task — rendering, simulation, or data processing — the M4000 is clearly the superior choice based on this data.

But the M4000's own benchmark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 113 is its strongest legacy API result, while DirectX 12 drops to 26 and DirectX 11 sits at 49. This suggests the M4000 excels in older, less demanding APIs but struggles with modern DirectX 12 workloads. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,680 and G2D score of 673 indicate solid 3D and 2D rasterization performance, while the GPU compute score of 2,660 shows moderate compute capability beyond OpenCL.

The Iris Pro P6300, with only the single OpenCL benchmark, has no other test data to analyze. Its 5,712 OpenCL score places it in the same ballpark as the GTX 670MX and GTX 550 Ti — both older discrete parts — which implies that for OpenCL compute, the integrated Iris Pro is a surprisingly capable performer. Its nearest rival with a positive delta is the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5,691, +0.4%), meaning the Iris Pro edges out that part by a hair.

For gaming or graphics workloads, the data is sparse. The M4000's Passmark results suggest it is a competent DirectX 9 and 11 card but weaker in DirectX 12. The Iris Pro has no gaming benchmarks in the data, so any claims about its gaming performance would be speculative. What the data does show is that in compute, the M4000 dominates; in legacy graphics APIs, the M4000 has measurable scores; and the Iris Pro's only data point is its OpenCL result.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, using the Broadwell GT3e chip with Generation 8.0 architecture. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that shares system memory, with a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 800 MHz. Its memory configuration is entirely system-dependent — size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all "System Shared" or "System Dependent," meaning it has no dedicated VRAM of its own.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000, in contrast, is a discrete workstation card built on TSMC's 28 nm process, using the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It has 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 1502 MHz, with 6 Gbps effective data rate. This dedicated memory is a massive advantage for the M4000, as it does not contend with the CPU for bandwidth.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Iris Pro has 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and just 6 render output units (ROPs). Its pixel rate is 4.800 GPixel/s and texture rate is 38.40 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 614.4 GFLOPS. The M4000, by comparison, has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s — over 10 times higher — and its texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.573 TFLOPS, which is roughly 4.2 times the Iris Pro's output.

The transistor counts tell the story of complexity: the M4000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Iris Pro's transistor count is not listed, but its integrated nature means it shares the CPU die. The M4000's TDP is 120 W versus 15 W for the Iris Pro — an 8-fold difference in power draw that explains its performance advantage.

API support also differs. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M4000 is ahead on every API version, which matters for modern software compatibility. The M4000 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the Iris Pro uses a Ring Bus, reflecting its integrated nature.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Iris Pro P6300 scores 5,712. The M4000 leads by 70.1%.

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

A: The Iris Pro scores 5,712, which is within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5,691) and within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5,731). It trails the GTX 670MX by 0.1% (5,721).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Iris Pro uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Iris Pro has a TDP of 15 W, while the M4000 has a TDP of 120 W. The M4000 also requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their pixel and texture rates compare?

A: The M4000 delivers 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s, versus 4.800 GPixel/s and 38.40 GTexel/s for the Iris Pro.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the far more powerful GPU. Its OpenCL score of 19,118 dwarfs the Iris Pro's 5,712, and its dedicated 8 GB GDDR5 memory with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth provides a massive advantage over system-shared memory. The M4000's 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate leave the Iris Pro's 614.4 GFLOPS, 4.800 GPixel/s, and 38.40 GTexel/s in the dust.

However, the M4000's own benchmark results reveal weaknesses. Its Passmark DirectX 12 score of 26 is its lowest, while DirectX 9 scores 113 — suggesting that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture is better suited to legacy APIs than modern ones. Its average benchmark score of 5,467 is actually lower than the Iris Pro's 5,712, and both parts sit at nearly identical percentiles (32nd vs 33rd). This implies that for non-compute workloads, the two GPUs may be closer in real-world performance than the OpenCL gap suggests.

For users needing raw compute power, the M4000 is the clear choice. For those constrained by power — the M4000 draws 120 W versus 15 W — or who need an integrated solution with no expansion slot, the Iris Pro is the only option. The M4000's 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot form factor make it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups, while the Iris Pro's outputs are motherboard-dependent. The M4000's larger physical footprint (241 mm length, 111 mm height) is a trade-off for its performance.

The verdict from the data: the Quadro M4000 wins on compute performance, dedicated memory, and modern API support. The Iris Pro wins on power efficiency and integration simplicity. There is no outright winner — only the right tool for the right job.

# Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | GM204 |

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 800 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1,664 |

| TMUs | 48 | 104 |

| ROPs | 6 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.800 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.40 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 614.4 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2015-06-28 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |