GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark places the NVIDIA Quadro M500M ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M500M scores 5986, while the Iris Pro P6300 scores 5712. This represents a 4.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The delta is moderate, not a decisive margin, but a consistent one that appears across the broader competitive landscape.

Context matters here. The Iris Pro P6300’s average benchmark score of 5712 places it at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M500M’s average of 5604 sits at the 32nd percentile. Notably, the average scores differ from the single OpenCL run: the Iris Pro’s average equals its OpenCL score (5712), while the Quadro’s average is dragged down to 5604 by its additional Vulkan result of 5222. The OpenCL-only comparison therefore flatters the Quadro slightly relative to its multi-test average.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the Iris Pro P6300 sits in a tight cluster. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX by 0.1% (5721 vs. 5712) and the GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 0.3% (5731 vs. 5712), while leading the AMD Radeon HD 8790M by 0.4% (5691) and the Quadro M500M by 1.9% (5604) when using average scores. The Quadro M500M, by contrast, leads the AMD FirePro M4000 by 1.2% (5537) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 by 1.7% (5508), but trails the Radeon HD 8790M by 1.5% (5691) and the GeForce GTX 765M by 1.9% (5501).

The picture is one of near-parity with slight swings depending on the test methodology. In the OpenCL workload, the Quadro M500M wins by 274 points. But across all available benchmarks, the Iris Pro P6300 actually holds a 1.9% average-score advantage over the Quadro. The Vulkan result is the differentiator, the Quadro posts 5222 there, a significant drop from its OpenCL figure, which pulls its average down. The Iris Pro has no Vulkan score in the data, so its average remains at the OpenCL level.

This split is worth emphasizing: if the workload is OpenCL-based, the Quadro M500M is the faster part by a measurable margin. If the evaluation uses a broader benchmark suite or includes Vulkan, the Iris Pro’s consistent OpenCL performance gives it the edge in average terms. The data does not support a categorical winner; it supports a workload-dependent conclusion.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5986, compared to 5712 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. This is a 4.6% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 has an average benchmark score of 5712, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M averages 5604. The Iris Pro leads by 1.9% in this metric, based on the deltaPct value in the nearest-rivals data.

Q: What explains the difference between the OpenCL head-to-head result and the average scores?

A: The Quadro M500M has two benchmark results: 5986 in OpenCL and 5222 in Vulkan. The Iris Pro P6300 has only the OpenCL score of 5712. The Quadro’s Vulkan score drags its average down to 5604, while the Iris Pro’s average remains at 5712, creating a discrepancy between the single-test comparison and the multi-test average.

Q: Where does each GPU rank relative to all GPUs?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile. These are adjacent positions, indicating very similar overall performance tiers.

Q: How does each GPU compare to the AMD Radeon HD 8790M?

A: The Intel Iris Pro P6300 leads the Radeon HD 8790M by 0.4% (5712 vs. 5691). The NVIDIA Quadro M500M trails the same Radeon part by 1.5% (5604 vs. 5691). This means the Iris Pro’s standing relative to a common rival is better than the Quadro’s.

Q: Does the Quadro M500M have any benchmark advantage beyond OpenCL?

A: The data includes a Vulkan result for the Quadro M500M at 5222, but no Vulkan result for the Iris Pro P6300. The Quadro’s Vulkan score is substantially lower than its OpenCL score, so it does not represent an advantage, it represents a weakness that lowers the Quadro’s average.

# The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced choice rather than a clear victor. For applications that rely on OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the faster option, delivering 5986 against the Intel Iris Pro P6300’s 5712, a 4.6% improvement. This is a meaningful margin for compute-bound workloads that scale with raw throughput.

However, the broader benchmark picture favors the Intel part. The Iris Pro P6300’s average score of 5712 exceeds the Quadro M500M’s average of 5604 by 1.9%. The Quadro’s Vulkan result of 5222 is a significant liability, suggesting inconsistent performance across different API workloads. If a user’s software stack includes Vulkan, the Quadro’s advantage in OpenCL may not translate to real-world gains.

The percentile rankings reinforce this ambiguity: the Iris Pro sits at the 33rd percentile, the Quadro at the 32nd. They are effectively in the same performance class. The Intel part also does this with a 15 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 30 W, though the Quadro’s higher power envelope buys it the OpenCL lead.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute in a mobile or low-power context, the Quadro M500M is the pick, it wins the only direct comparison available. For users who want consistent performance across a broader range of benchmarks, or who value the lower power draw, the Intel Iris Pro P6300 is the safer choice. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a workload-specific one.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every physical and memory specification. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s foundry, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro’s die is 77 mm² and contains 1,020 million transistors, with a transistor density of 13.2M per mm²; the Iris Pro’s die size and transistor count are not listed.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The Iris Pro runs at a 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost. The Quadro M500M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, substantially higher. Memory configurations are entirely different: the Iris Pro uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s.

The shading unit count is identical at 384 for both, but the texture and pixel pipelines differ. The Iris Pro has 48 TMUs and 6 ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 38.40 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 4.800 GPixel/s. The Quadro has 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs, producing 17.98 GTexel/s and 8.992 GPixel/s. The Iris Pro thus has more than double the texture throughput, while the Quadro has nearly double the pixel throughput.

FP32 compute favors the Quadro at 863.2 GFLOPS versus the Iris Pro’s 614.4 GFLOPS. Power consumption also differs: the Iris Pro’s TDP is 15 W, the Quadro’s is 30 W. The Iris Pro is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and motherboard-dependent display outputs; the Quadro is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus and portable-device-dependent outputs, with no power connectors required.

API support shows a trade-off. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA thus has newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions, while Intel’s DirectX support is one revision higher.

Release timing differs by roughly 19 months: the Iris Pro launched on 2014-09-04, the Quadro on 2016-04-26. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro has a named predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and successor (Quadro Pascal-M); the Iris Pro lists neither.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The Intel Iris Pro P6300 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) family. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation.

The process node difference is significant: Intel uses 14 nm, NVIDIA uses 28 nm. This gives the Intel part a density advantage that partly compensates for its lower clock speeds. The Iris Pro achieves its 614.4 GFLOPS with a 300 MHz base clock, while the Quadro reaches 863.2 GFLOPS with a 1029 MHz base, the Maxwell design leans on higher clocks rather than transistor density.

The memory architecture is a fundamental divergence. The Iris Pro shares system memory with the CPU, with bandwidth described only as “System Dependent.” The Quadro has dedicated 2 GB DDR3 with fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads sensitive to memory latency or bandwidth consistency, the Quadro’s dedicated pool is structurally advantaged, though the system-shared approach on the Iris Pro can benefit from fast system RAM.

Shading resources are equal at 384 cores, but the surrounding logic differs. The Iris Pro allocates 48 TMUs and 6 ROPs, a configuration that emphasizes texture work, its 38.40 GTexel/s texture rate is more than double the Quadro’s 17.98 GTexel/s. The Quadro counters with 8 ROPs and an 8.992 GPixel/s pixel rate, nearly double the Iris Pro’s 4.800 GPixel/s. This is a classic split between Intel’s texture-heavy design and NVIDIA’s pixel-focused one.

API feature sets reflect the architectures’ release windows. Intel’s Generation 8.0 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) but only Vulkan 1.0 and OpenGL 4.4. NVIDIA’s Maxwell supports Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6 but DirectX 12 (11_0). The Vulkan gap is particularly wide, 1.0 to 1.4, indicating significantly newer driver-level support on the NVIDIA side.

The form factors are also architecturally driven. The Iris Pro is an IGP, integrated into the processor package, with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors. The Quadro is an MXM module, a replaceable mobile GPU form factor, with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors. The MXM design allows for the dedicated memory and higher clocks, while the IGP design trades those for power efficiency and integration simplicity.