Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and Intel UHD Graphics 730 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum — one is a dedicated workstation card from 2013, the other an integrated GPU from 2021. Benchmark data shows the Quadro K4000 leads in every shared test, but the UHD 730 is far more efficient and modern in API support. The verdict is straightforward: if you need raw compute throughput and dedicated VRAM, the Quadro K4000 wins decisively. If you need a low-power integrated solution for basic display output and light compute, the UHD 730 is the practical choice. The data does not support using the UHD 730 for demanding 3D workloads — it trails the Quadro K4000 by 13.8% in OpenCL and 18.6% in Vulkan. However, the Quadro K4000 is end-of-life, requires a 250 W PSU, and draws 80 W, while the UHD 730 sips 15 W and needs no extra power connectors.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 if your priority is compute performance. Its average benchmark score of 5982 beats the UHD 730's 5929, and it wins both head-to-head tests. The OpenCL gap is 13.8% (6816 vs 5988), and the Vulkan gap is 18.6% (6964 vs 5870). The Quadro K4000 also sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, one point higher than the UHD 730's 33rd percentile. This is a meaningful difference for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads — the Quadro K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the UHD 730.

Pick the Intel UHD Graphics 730 if you are building a system where power draw and physical footprint matter more than raw performance. At 15 W TDP with no power connectors and an IGP slot width, it is dramatically easier to integrate than the Quadro K4000's 80 W, single-slot design with a 6-pin connector. The UHD 730 also supports newer APIs — DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175 — which matters for compatibility with modern software. It also has a higher boost clock (1300 MHz) and a base clock (300 MHz), whereas the Quadro K4000's base and boost clocks are not specified. For basic desktop use, media playback, and light compute, the UHD 730 is sufficient, but benchmark results make clear it is not a workstation replacement.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K4000 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture on a GK106 chip, built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. It has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The UHD 730 uses Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture on a Rocket Lake chip, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. It has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The transistor count and die size for the UHD 730 are not listed, but the shading unit disparity is stark — the Quadro K4000 has 4x the shading units, 5.33x the TMUs, and 3x the ROPs.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 730 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth — it borrows from system RAM and its performance scales with your memory configuration. The Quadro K4000's dedicated VRAM is a major advantage for workloads that need consistent memory bandwidth. The UHD 730's clock behavior also differs: it has a 300 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4000's core clocks are not specified, only its memory clock at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).

API support is another differentiator. The UHD 730 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, both newer than the Quadro K4000's DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The UHD 730 also lists FP16 performance at 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro K4000 has no FP16 figure. The Quadro K4000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface; the UHD 730 uses a Ring Bus, reflecting its integrated nature. Display outputs also differ — the Quadro K4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the UHD 730's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear winner in both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 against the UHD 730's 5988 — a 13.8% advantage. This is the larger of the two gaps in percentage terms, and it reflects the Quadro K4000's superior compute resources: 768 shading units versus 192, and 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. The OpenCL test stresses raw parallel compute, and the dedicated GPU simply has more hardware to throw at it.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro K4000 scores 6964 versus the UHD 730's 5870 — an 18.6% lead. This is the biggest win for the Quadro K4000. Interestingly, the UHD 730 supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.175), yet still loses by a wider margin in this test. This suggests the Quadro K4000's hardware advantage outweighs the UHD 730's newer driver-level API support. The Quadro K4000 also has higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s vs 10.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s), which helps in graphics-heavy Vulkan workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro K4000 averages 5982 across three tests (including Geekbench Metal at 4166, which the UHD 730 cannot run). The UHD 730 averages 5929 across its two tests. The delta is small in absolute terms — 0.9% — but the Quadro K4000's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, -0.1%) and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, -0.2%), placing it in a tight cluster. The UHD 730's rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, -0.4%) and NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, -0.5%), showing it competes with low-end mobile parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5982, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 averages 5929. The Quadro K4000 leads by 0.9%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K4000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K4000 scores 6816 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5988 for the UHD 730, a 13.8% advantage.

Q: Does the UHD 730 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data shows the Quadro K4000 wins 2 head-to-head tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), and the UHD 730 wins 0.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU with a 1x 6-pin power connector. The UHD 730 has a 15 W TDP and needs no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The UHD 730 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 730 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K4000 wins in every measurable compute category. It has 4x the shading units (768 vs 192), 5.33x the TMUs (64 vs 12), and 3x the ROPs (24 vs 8). Its FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS — a 2.49x advantage. Pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 51.84 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. The dedicated 3 GB GDDR5 memory with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for large datasets or textures that would thrash system shared memory. It also has a higher percentile ranking (34th vs 33rd) and wins both head-to-head tests. The data supports using the Quadro K4000 for OpenCL compute, Vulkan workloads, and any task that benefits from dedicated VRAM.

The UHD 730 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is 65 W lower than the Quadro K4000's 80 W, and it requires no extra power connectors or PSU headroom. As an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, it takes zero expansion slots and its display outputs are motherboard dependent, making it trivial to include in any Rocket Lake build. It supports newer APIs (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4), which future-proofs software compatibility. It also has a higher boost clock at 1300 MHz versus the Quadro K4000's unspecified boost, and it offers FP16 compute at 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1) where the Quadro K4000 has none. For office work, 2D rendering, video playback, and light compute tasks that don't stress the GPU, the UHD 730 is the lower-friction choice. The data does not suggest it for serious 3D work — it loses both benchmarks and has less than half the texture fill rate.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | Intel UHD Graphics 730 |

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

| Chip | GK106 | Rocket Lake |

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 12.1 |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm+++ (Intel) |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 3 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 768 | 192 |

| TMUs | 64 | 12 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 80 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2021-03-29 |

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

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | Not listed |

The Quadro K4000 is a larger, power-hungrier part with dedicated memory and vastly more compute units. The UHD 730 is a modern integrated GPU with better API support and a tiny power footprint. The specification table shows they are not direct competitors, but for users choosing between a legacy workstation card and a current IGP, the data favors the Quadro K4000 for performance and the UHD 730 for practicality.