Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The dataset contains only one directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA RTX A400 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5,712. The delta is a staggering 299.9% in favor of the RTX A400 — meaning the NVIDIA part delivers roughly four times the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload.

Context matters here. The RTX A400's nearest rivals — the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077), Quadro P2000 (6,049), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117), and AMD Radeon 760M (6,019) — all cluster within a 1% band of each other. The RTX A400's 22,844 OpenCL score is not merely ahead of the P6300; it is roughly 3.7 times higher than its own nearest competitor's average score. That places the A400 in a different performance tier entirely, despite its percentile ranking of 35 among all GPUs. The P6300, by contrast, sits at the 33rd percentile, and its nearest rivals (GTX 670MX, GTX 550 Ti, Radeon HD 8790M, Quadro M500M) are all within 2% of its 5,712 average score — a tight pack of older, low-end parts.

The head-to-head record is 1 win for the RTX A400 and 0 for the Intel part. This is not a close contest. The P6300's best available benchmark result is the OpenCL score, and it is an order of magnitude below the A400's result. Even the P6300's pixel rate of 4.800 GPixel/s versus the A400's 28.19 GPixel/s tells the same story: the A400 has nearly six times the fill rate. Texture rate is a closer comparison — 38.40 GTexel/s for the P6300 versus 42.29 GTexel/s for the A400 — showing that the Intel part's 48 texture mapping units partially compensate for its low clock speeds, but the overall throughput gap is still decisive.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22,844 versus 5,712 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, a 299.9% advantage.

Q: How does the RTX A400 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The A400's average benchmark score is 6,078, which is essentially tied with the GeForce MX230 (6,077, 0% delta), 0.5% ahead of the Quadro P2000 (6,049), 0.6% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (6,117), and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019).

Q: What is the performance context for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300?

A: The P6300's average score of 5,712 places it near the GeForce GTX 670MX (5,721, -0.1% delta), GTX 550 Ti (5,731, -0.3%), Radeon HD 8790M (5,691, +0.4%), and Quadro M500M (5,604, +1.9%). All five parts are within a 2% band.

Q: Is the P6300 competitive in any metric?

A: The P6300 has 48 TMUs versus 24 for the A400, which narrows the texture rate gap to 38.40 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. However, its FP32 throughput of 614.4 GFLOPS is far below the A400's 2.706 TFLOPS.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: The RTX A400 ranks in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the P6300 ranks in the 33rd. Despite the massive OpenCL delta, both parts sit in the lower-middle range of the overall GPU landscape, meaning neither is a top-tier part.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². Its architecture is Ampere, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation, and it includes 6 dedicated ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, by contrast, uses the Broadwell GT3e chip on Intel's 14 nm process, with Generation 8.0 architecture from the HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) family. Intel's part has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores — a structural difference that makes the A400 fundamentally more capable in modern rendering workloads that leverage these dedicated units.

The memory architecture is another major divergence. The A400 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) memory clock. The P6300 uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth — meaning its performance relies entirely on the host system's RAM and memory controller. For discrete workloads requiring consistent, high-bandwidth memory access, the A400's dedicated VRAM is a decisive advantage.

The RTX A400 features 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the P6300 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The Intel part's higher TMU count is noteworthy, but its ROP count is less than half of NVIDIA's. The A400's FP32 throughput of 2.706 TFLOPS is 4.4 times the P6300's 614.4 GFLOPS. The A400 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.706 TFLOPS), while the Intel part lists no FP16 capability. Pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s for the A400 versus 4.800 GPixel/s for the P6300 — a 5.9x gap.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A400 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |

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

| Chip | GA107 | Broadwell GT3e |

| Architecture | Ampere | Generation 8.0 |

| Generation | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) | HD Graphics-W (Broadwell) |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | Intel |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1762 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Memory | 4 GB GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 768 | 384 |

| TMUs | 24 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 6 |

| RT Cores | 6 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 24 | None |

| FP32 | 2.706 TFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| Pixel Rate | 28.19 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 42.29 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 50 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

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

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.0 |

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

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2014-09-04 |

The clock speed differential is extreme: the A400's base clock of 1417 MHz is 4.7 times the P6300's base of 300 MHz, and the boost difference is 1762 MHz versus 800 MHz. The A400 also uses a discrete PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the P6300 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) on a Ring Bus. The TDP disparity — 50 W versus 15 W — reflects the A400's status as a discrete card with its own cooling and power delivery, versus the P6300's low-power integrated design.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior GPU by every available performance metric. Its 299.9% OpenCL advantage over the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is matched by a 4.4x FP32 throughput lead, a 5.9x pixel rate lead, and a 1.9x shading unit count advantage. The A400 also brings modern features — 6 RT cores, 24 tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4 — that the P6300 entirely lacks. The Intel part's only nominal advantage is its TMU count (48 versus 24), which produces a texture rate that is 91% of the A400's but does not compensate for the massive compute deficit.

For any workload that leverages OpenCL, CUDA-style compute, or modern graphics APIs, the RTX A400 is the clear choice. Its active production status, 2024 release date, and dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory make it a usable discrete workstation part today. The P6300, released in 2014 and now end-of-life, is an integrated solution with system-dependent memory performance; its best-case benchmark results are competitive only with decade-old discrete GPUs like the GTX 550 Ti and Quadro M500M.

Users who need a low-power integrated GPU with no add-in card requirement might consider the P6300's 15 W TDP and motherboard-dependent display outputs. But the data shows that for any performance-sensitive task, the RTX A400's 50 W power draw buys a level of compute capability that the Intel part cannot approach. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX A400 wins on raw performance, feature set, and modern API support. The P6300's sole virtue is its integration into the host processor, which eliminates the need for a discrete card — but that comes at the cost of a 4.4x FP32 performance deficit.