Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The P2000 is a discrete workstation card built on the Pascal architecture, while the P6300 is an integrated graphics processor embedded in Broadwell-era Intel silicon. Their single shared benchmark result shows a massive gap, but the story goes deeper than one score.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between these two is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Quadro P2000 scores 20125, while the Iris Pro P6300 manages 5712. That gives the NVIDIA card a 252.3% advantage — it is roughly 3.5 times faster in raw compute throughput. This is not a close contest by any measure. The delta is so large that it places these products in entirely different performance tiers, not just different segments of the same tier.

To put that score into perspective, the P2000's average benchmark score across all tests is 6049, which places it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce MX230 (6077, delta -0.5%), RTX A400 (6078, delta -0.5%), Radeon 760M (6019, delta +0.5%), and Radeon RX 6400 (6001, delta +0.8%). The P6300, meanwhile, has an average score of 5712 and sits at the 33rd percentile. Its closest competitors are the GeForce GTX 670MX (5721, delta -0.1%), GTX 550 Ti (5731, delta -0.3%), Radeon HD 8790M (5691, delta +0.4%), and Quadro M500M (5604, delta +1.9%).

The interesting nuance here is that despite the 252.3% OpenCL gap, the percentile rankings are only two points apart — 35th versus 33rd. That tells you the P6300 is not completely outclassed in the broader GPU landscape; it just happens to be in a different league than the P2000 specifically. The P2000's additional benchmarks show a wider range of capabilities: it scores 23566 in Geekbench Vulkan, 6956 in Passmark G3D, 2933 in Passmark GPU Compute, 626 in Passmark G2D, and 124 in Passmark DirectX 9. The P6300 has no comparable results in those tests, so direct comparisons beyond OpenCL are impossible.

Where Each One Wins

The P2000 wins the only head-to-head test, but that does not mean the P6300 is without a use case. The P6300's advantage lies in its integration and power envelope. It is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, meaning it draws no additional power and requires no dedicated slot or power connectors. For a system that needs basic graphics acceleration without adding a discrete card, this is a legitimate choice. Its 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost clocks are modest, but they are enough for desktop composition and light 2D workloads.

The P2000, by contrast, is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP and no external power connectors, but it still requires a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and a 250 W suggested PSU. Its 1076 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost clocks, combined with 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, give it 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a real compute resource. The P6300 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, which means its performance scales with the host system's RAM speed and architecture.

For compute-oriented tasks like OpenCL workloads, the P2000 is the clear winner. Its 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the P6300's 614.4 GFLOPS. The P2000 also carries more shading units (1024 versus 384), more texture mapping units (64 versus 48), and far more ROPs (40 versus 6). The pixel rate difference is stark: 59.20 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern at 94.72 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s.

The P6300 wins on integration and simplicity. It has no dimensions, no power connectors, and no cooling requirements beyond what the motherboard provides. For a compact or low-power build where a discrete GPU is not feasible, it is the practical option. But if you need graphics performance, the data does not support choosing it over the P2000.

Architecture Differences

The P2000 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture using the GP106 chip, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The P6300 uses Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture with the Broadwell GT3e chip, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for this part, so direct density comparisons are not possible.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The P2000 has dedicated 5 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 160-bit bus and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The P6300 relies entirely on system shared memory, with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. This means the P6300's memory performance is not a fixed specification — it varies with the host platform.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The P2000 runs at 1076 MHz base and boosts to 1480 MHz, with memory clocked at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The P6300 runs at 300 MHz base and 800 MHz boost, with no dedicated memory clock. The compute ratios tell the story: the P2000's FP16 throughput is only 47.36 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio to FP32, while the P6300 has no listed FP16 capability at all.

The P2000 supports four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a multi-monitor workstation card. The P6300's display outputs are motherboard dependent, meaning they vary by the specific board implementation. API support also differs: the P2000 offers DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the P6300 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the Iris Pro P6300 averages 5712. The P2000 also sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs versus the P6300's 33rd percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P2000 in OpenCL?

A: The P2000 scores 20125 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5712 for the P6300, a 252.3% advantage. That is more than triple the integrated part's compute output.

Q: Does the Iris Pro P6300 have dedicated memory?

A: No. The P6300 uses system shared memory with a system shared bus width and system dependent bandwidth. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each?

A: The P2000 has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The P6300 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no separate power supply requirement.

Q: Can the Iris Pro P6300 run Vulkan?

A: Yes, but only at Vulkan 1.0. The P2000 supports Vulkan 1.4, along with DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, whereas the P6300 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.4.

Q: Which card is better for multi-monitor setups?

A: The P2000 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suited for multi-display workstation use. The P6300's display outputs are motherboard dependent, so its multi-monitor capability varies by the host board.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro P2000 outperforms the Iris Pro P6300 in every measurable way that matters for graphics compute. Its 252.3% OpenCL lead, higher average score, and superior percentile ranking make it the correct choice for any workload that relies on GPU acceleration. The P2000's dedicated 5 GB GDDR5 memory, 140.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput provide a level of performance the P6300 cannot approach with its shared memory and 614.4 GFLOPS.

The P6300's only legitimate advantage is its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor. It requires no slot, no power connector, and no additional cooling. In a system where a discrete GPU is physically impossible or power constraints are absolute, the P6300 is a functional fallback. It will handle basic graphics output and light compute, but it will not accelerate professional workloads meaningfully.

Choose the P2000 if you need workstation-class graphics, multi-monitor output, or any serious compute. Choose the P6300 only if you are constrained to integrated graphics and cannot install a discrete card. The benchmark results do not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P2000 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Generation 8.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Base Clock | 1076 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 140.2 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 40 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.20 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 94.72 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.031 TFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | — |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | — |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2017-02-05 | 2014-09-04 |