Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

# Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200: A Benchmark Database Comparison

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The Intel part, built on a 10 nm process with the DG1 chip, targets integrated-class performance in a compact form factor, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is a professional workstation card from the Kepler era, built on a 28 nm process with a much larger die. The benchmark database records a single head-to-head comparison in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315 against the Quadro K4200's 12,313, giving Intel a 16.3% advantage. This delta places the Intel part at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 52nd percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315, which is 16.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200's 12,313 in the geekbench_opencl test.

Q: How does the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel part's average score of 14,315 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352, a 0.3% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14,277, a 0.3% gap). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN by 0.4% and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 by 0.5%.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses 4 GB of LPDDR4X on a 128-bit bus, delivering 68.26 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a TDP of 25 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics delivers 2.534 TFLOPS in FP32, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 delivers 2.107 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 20% in Intel's favor.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics was released on 2020-10-30, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 was released on 2014-07-21.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data gives the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics the only direct head-to-head victory, winning the geekbench_opencl test by 16.3%. This single data point, however, does not tell the full story of where each GPU excels based on its architecture and feature set.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics wins decisively in raw compute performance per watt. With a TDP of only 25 W, it produces 2.534 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 consumes 108 W to produce 2.107 TFLOPS. The database shows Intel achieving roughly 101 TFLOPS per watt compared to NVIDIA's 19.5 TFLOPS per watt, a fivefold efficiency advantage. Additionally, the Intel part supports FP16 compute with 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Quadro K4200 lacks entirely, making the Intel GPU more suitable for workloads that can leverage mixed-precision arithmetic.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, on the other hand, wins in memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 172.8 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the Intel part's 68.26 GB/s, and its texture rate of 87.81 GTexel/s exceeds Intel's 79.20 GTexel/s. These characteristics favor the Quadro in memory-bound scenarios and texture-heavy rendering workloads. The Quadro also offers a wider 256-bit memory bus compared to Intel's 128-bit bus, which can be advantageous in professional applications that stress memory subsystems. Furthermore, the Quadro K4200 includes display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the Intel Iris Xe MAX has no outputs, making the Quadro the only option for direct display connectivity in a standalone card configuration.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics uses the DG1 chip based on Generation 12.1 architecture, part of the Xe Graphics generation, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The die size is 95 mm², and the GPU is designed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The die is 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm².

The Intel part's newer process node allows for a much smaller die while still delivering higher FP32 throughput. However, the Quadro's larger die accommodates significantly more execution resources: 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to Intel's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the Intel GPU achieves higher clock speeds: a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 1650 MHz, versus the Quadro's 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. The Intel part's boost clock is more than double the Quadro's, which compensates for the lower unit count in many compute scenarios.

In terms of API support, the Intel Iris Xe MAX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Intel's newer Vulkan support and higher DirectX feature level reflect its more modern architecture. The Quadro's memory clock runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), while Intel's memory clock is 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective), though the Quadro's wider bus and GDDR5 memory type give it the bandwidth advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 10 nm process node versus the Quadro's 28 nm, and its die size is 95 mm² compared to 294 mm². The Quadro has a transistor count of 3,540 million with a density of 12.0M per mm², while the Intel part's transistor count is not recorded. Clock speeds differ substantially: Intel's base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1650 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 771 MHz base and 784 MHz boost. Memory configurations also diverge: Intel uses 4 GB of LPDDR4X on a 128-bit bus with 68.26 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward NVIDIA in unit counts: 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus Intel's 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Yet Intel achieves higher pixel and texture rates in some metrics: 39.60 GPixel/s versus 21.95 GPixel/s for pixel rate, while the Quadro wins texture rate at 87.81 GTexel/s versus 79.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance favors Intel at 2.534 TFLOPS versus 2.107 TFLOPS, and Intel additionally supports FP16 at 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Quadro does not offer.

Power and physical characteristics differ dramatically. The Intel part has a TDP of 25 W, no power connectors, and a slot width of IGP. The Quadro has a TDP of 108 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and occupies a single slot with dimensions of 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The bus interfaces differ as well: Intel uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are present only on the Quadro (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the Intel part has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the geekbench_opencl test. In this benchmark, the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 scores 12,313, resulting in a 16.3% victory for Intel. This score places the Intel part at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 52nd percentile, confirming that Intel's advantage is meaningful in the broader GPU landscape.

The Intel part's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Vega 11 at 14,352 (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti at 14,277 (0.3% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN at 14,373 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 at 14,385 (0.5% higher). This clustering shows that the Intel Iris Xe MAX is competitive with a range of desktop and mobile GPUs from both AMD and NVIDIA, despite its integrated-class power envelope.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm at 12,625 (1.8% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT at 12,710 (2.5% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12,773 (2.9% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A at 11,998 (3.3% lower). This positioning shows the Quadro K4200 performing slightly above its closest competitor but below a cluster of more modern GPUs.

The 16.3% delta in OpenCL performance is driven primarily by the Intel part's superior FP32 throughput, which is 20.3% higher than the Quadro's, combined with its dramatically higher boost clock. The Quadro's higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 68.26 GB/s) does not translate into a OpenCL score advantage in this test, suggesting the benchmark is more compute-bound than memory-bound. The Intel part's newer architecture and higher clock speeds overcome its narrower memory bus and fewer execution units. For workloads that stress memory bandwidth or texture throughput, the Quadro's specifications suggest it would fare better, but the recorded data shows Intel winning the only benchmark where both GPUs have comparable results.