Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these two mobile graphics solutions clearly. Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 5988 against 5211 for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, a 14.9% advantage. The Intel part also sits higher in the overall database percentile ranking, at the 33rd percentile versus the 30th percentile for the Quadro 4000M.

For a user choosing between these two, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the safer pick for general compute workloads and OpenCL-accelerated tasks. It is a modern integrated solution built on a 14 nm+++ process from Intel, while the Quadro 4000M is a 2011-era discrete mobile part using NVIDIA's Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process from TSMC. The data shows the Intel iGPU outperforms the older discrete GPU in raw compute benchmarks despite being integrated into the processor.

However, the Quadro 4000M is not without merit. It has a much higher thermal envelope at 100 W, which suggests it was designed for sustained professional workloads in larger mobile workstations. It also offers dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory. For users needing dedicated VRAM and a mature mobile workstation form factor, the Quadro 4000M remains a functional option, but the performance data indicates it is slower in OpenCL compute.

The production status of both parts is end-of-life, so neither is a new purchase recommendation. From a pure performance-per-watt perspective, the Intel part is clearly superior, as it delivers higher benchmark scores at 15 W versus 100 W. The verdict is straightforward: pick the Intel UHD Graphics 730 for better compute performance and efficiency, or the Quadro 4000M if dedicated memory is an absolute requirement and the higher power draw is acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has an average benchmark score of 5929, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M averages 5211. The Intel part is ahead by roughly 14.9% in the direct OpenCL comparison.

Q: How does the Intel UHD Graphics 730 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: In the database, the Intel part is within 0.9% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982 score, -0.9% delta), within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, -0.7%), within 0.5% of the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, -0.5%), and within 0.4% of the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, -0.4%). It is effectively a peer of those GPUs, with the AMD Radeon HD 8730M being the closest competitor.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000M is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161 score, 1% delta) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, 1.1%). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M by 0.5% (5236) and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M by 1.4% (5284).

Q: What memory configurations do these two GPUs use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the Intel UHD Graphics 730 and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is built on Intel's Rocket Lake chip using the Generation 12.1 architecture, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface. The GPU packs 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. Its rendering rates are 10.40 GPixel/s for pixel fill and 15.60 GTexel/s for texture fill. Floating point performance reaches 499.2 GFLOPS in FP32 and 998.4 GFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip with NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The chip has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s and texture rate is 26.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 638.4 GFLOPS, and no FP16 rate is recorded.

The architectural gap is significant. The Intel part is a modern integrated solution with a much smaller process node and higher pixel fill rate. The Quadro 4000M has a larger shading unit count and higher texture rate, but its pixel rate is lower at 6.650 GPixel/s compared to 10.40 GPixel/s for Intel. The Intel GPU also has Vulkan 1.4 API support, which the Quadro lacks entirely, and a higher DirectX feature level at 12_1 versus 11_0 for NVIDIA. The Quadro 4000M has a far larger transistor count and die area, reflective of a discrete chip design, but its compute output in FP32 is only slightly above Intel at 638.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, and Intel's FP16 capability at 998.4 GFLOPS nearly doubles that FP16 figure where the Quadro has none.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification except for a few shared items like OpenGL 4.6 support and end-of-life status. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, with system shared memory at unspecified speed. The Quadro 4000M has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 625 MHz and 2.5 Gbps effective. Memory size is system shared for Intel versus 2 GB GDDR5 for NVIDIA. Bus width is system shared for Intel versus 256 bit for NVIDIA, and bandwidth is system dependent for Intel versus 80.00 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Power consumption differs dramatically, with Intel at 15 W and NVIDIA at 100 W. Slot width is IGP for Intel and MXM Module for NVIDIA. Power connectors are absent on both, but Intel lists none listed and the Quadro specifically has none listed as well. Bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel versus MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel versus portable device dependent for NVIDIA. Transistor count is absent for Intel, but 1,950 million transistors are recorded for NVIDIA. Die size is absent for Intel, but 332 mm² is recorded for NVIDIA, with 5.9M per mm² density for NVIDIA.

Release dates differ, with Intel released on 2021-03-29 and NVIDIA on 2011-02-21. Predecessor is absent for Intel, and the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro FX Mobile for NVIDIA, with its successor being Quadro Kepler-M. Production status is end-of-life for both. Vulkan is 1.4 for Intel and absent for NVIDIA. DirectX is 12 (12_1) for Intel and 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA. Shading units are 192 for Intel and 336 for NVIDIA, TMUs 12 for Intel and 56 for NVIDIA, ROPs 8 for Intel and 32 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 10.40 GPixel/s for Intel and 6.650 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, texture rate 15.60 GTexel/s for Intel and 26.60 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, and FP32 499.2 GFLOPS for Intel and 638.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, with FP16 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1) for Intel and none for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5988 while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211. The Intel part wins by 14.9%. This is a substantial margin in compute performance, indicating that the modern Intel iGPU handles OpenCL workloads significantly better than the Fermi-based Quadro.

In the broader database context, the Intel part's average score of 5929 puts it ahead of the Quadro's 5211 by approximately 718 points. The Intel part also sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 30th percentile. The Intel part beats its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8730M, by a margin of just 0.4%, meaning it is squarely in a competitive cluster of older mid-range parts. The Quadro, by contrast, is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, but trails the NVIDIA GeForce 940M by 1.4%.

The single benchmark result shows a clear winner. Intel leads in OpenCL compute, which matters for general purpose GPU compute tasks, video encoding, and many modern applications that leverage OpenCL. The Quadro has a higher FP32 rating on paper at 638.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS for Intel, but the actual OpenCL score is lower, suggesting real-world efficiency favors the Intel architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 14.9%. This makes it the better choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration. It also has a higher average benchmark score of 5929 versus 5211, a higher percentile ranking at 33 versus 30, and a dramatically lower thermal design power of 15 W versus 100 W. Its modern features include Vulkan 1.4 support, DirectX 12 (12_1), and a 300 MHz base clock boosting to 1300 MHz. For integrated graphics users in thin laptops or compact systems, the Intel part offers better compute performance with far less power draw.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in specific hardware categories. It has dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for workloads that exceed system shared memory capacity or require stable memory allocation. It also has more shading units at 336 versus 192, more ROPs at 32 versus 8, a higher texture rate at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, and a higher FP32 compute rating at 638.4 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. Its MXM module form factor suits professional mobile workstations that need a replaceable graphics module. However, the actual benchmark data shows the Quadro loses in OpenCL performance, so these hardware advantages do not translate into a win in the recorded test. The Quadro's 100 W power envelope suggests it was built for sustained loads in larger machines, but the performance gap remains.