GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is extraordinarily close. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5988, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986. The deltaPct between them is 0%, meaning the difference is effectively a rounding error. This is a statistical tie, not a decisive victory for either part. To put this in perspective, both GPUs sit in the same performance tier: the Quadro K4000M ranks at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 ranks at the 33rd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 5986 and 5929, respectively, with the Intel part’s average being pulled down by its additional Vulkan score of 5870.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 also has a Vulkan result of 5870, but the Quadro K4000M has no Vulkan benchmark listed. This means the only head-to-head metric available shows the Intel part ahead by a negligible margin. The NVIDIA GPU’s nearest rival in its own benchmark pool is the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5987, a deltaPct of 0%. The Intel part’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955, which is 0.4% behind. Both GPUs are surrounded by competitors within a 1% band, indicating they occupy a very crowded mid-low performance segment.

When looking at the broader context, the Quadro K4000M’s OpenCL score of 5986 places it just 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982) and 0.2% below both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000). The Intel UHD Graphics 730’s OpenCL score of 5988 places it 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957) and 0.7% above the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970). The data shows that in raw compute throughput, these two parts are functionally indistinguishable, the difference of 2 points out of nearly 6000 is noise.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins the only head-to-head test, but the margin is so small that it carries little practical weight. The Intel part’s Vulkan score of 5870 is notable because the Quadro K4000M has no Vulkan result at all, suggesting the Intel GPU has broader API support in that specific test environment. However, the OpenCL results are the only apples-to-apples comparison, and there the Intel part edges ahead by 0.03%.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M does not win any benchmark in the provided head-to-head data. Its zero wins in the winsA field confirm this. However, the Quadro’s percentile ranking (34th) is one point higher than the Intel’s (33rd), indicating that in the full universe of GPUs, the NVIDIA part sits marginally higher in the distribution. This is a statistical artifact of the Intel part’s lower Vulkan score dragging its average down, not evidence of superior OpenCL performance.

For use cases, the data suggests the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the better choice for workloads that leverage Vulkan, since it has a verified score in that API while the Quadro lacks one entirely. For OpenCL-centric tasks, either GPU will perform nearly identically. The Quadro K4000M’s higher pixel rate (12.02 GPixel/s vs 10.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (48.08 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s) do not translate into a benchmark advantage in the measured tests, which may indicate that the Geekbench OpenCL workload is compute-bound rather than bandwidth- or fill-rate-bound.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses the Rocket Lake chip, built on Intel’s Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured by Intel on a 14 nm+++ process. Intel does not disclose transistor count, die size, or density for this part.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having five times more shading units and nearly seven times more TMUs, the NVIDIA part only achieves a 0.03% higher OpenCL score. This suggests the Kepler architecture’s compute efficiency per shader is far lower than Intel’s Generation 12.1 design, or that the benchmark is heavily bottlenecked elsewhere.

Clock speeds also diverge: the Quadro runs at a fixed 601 MHz base and boost, while the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The Intel part’s boost clock is over twice the NVIDIA’s sustained clock. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the Quadro has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clock is 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), whereas the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock.

The FP32 compute figures show the NVIDIA part at 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus the Intel part at 499.2 GFLOPS, a 2.3x advantage for NVIDIA. However, the Intel part has an FP16 rate of 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability. The API support also differs: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Power consumption is a major differentiator: the Quadro is rated at 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot, while the Intel part is an IGP rated at 15 W TDP with a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro’s display outputs are portable device dependent, while the Intel part’s are motherboard dependent. Production status for both is end-of-life, but the Quadro was released on 2012-05-31, while the Intel part was released on 2021-03-30, nearly a decade later.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5988, which is 2 points higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M’s 5986. The deltaPct is 0%, indicating a statistical tie.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M support Vulkan?

A: The Quadro K4000M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 as an API capability, but it has no Vulkan benchmark score in the data. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 lists Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5870.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: How do their TDP ratings compare?

A: The Quadro K4000M is rated at 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is rated at 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has better FP32 performance?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 499.2 GFLOPS. However, this 2.3x advantage does not translate into a higher OpenCL benchmark score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M | Intel UHD Graphics 730 |

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

| Chip | GK104 | Rocket Lake |

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 12.1 |

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

| Transistors | 3,540 million | Not disclosed |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | Not disclosed |

| Base Clock | 601 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 601 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 960 | 192 |

| TMUs | 80 | 12 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.02 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 48.08 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,153.9 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 100 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2021-03-29 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows that these two GPUs are effectively equivalent in OpenCL compute performance, despite their radically different architectures and specifications. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins the only head-to-head test by a 0.03% margin, which is meaningless in real-world terms. However, the Intel part has a clear advantage in two areas: it has a Vulkan benchmark score (5870) while the Quadro does not, and it supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175) and a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0).

For users prioritizing modern API support and low power consumption, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the data-backed choice. Its 15 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 100 W TDP makes it dramatically more efficient, and its system-shared memory model simplifies integration. For users who need dedicated VRAM (4 GB GDDR5) or higher raw fill rates (12.02 GPixel/s vs 10.40 GPixel/s), the Quadro K4000M offers advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. The Quadro’s 960 shading units and 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32 far exceed the Intel part’s 192 units and 499.2 GFLOPS, but the OpenCL results suggest these resources are underutilized in the tested workload.

Given the production status of both parts is end-of-life, neither is a future-proof investment. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M’s nearest rival, the Quadro K4000 (5982), is 0.1% behind, while the Intel part’s nearest rival, the Quadro K620M (5957), is 0.5% behind. Both sit in the bottom third of all GPUs (34th and 33rd percentiles, respectively). The verdict is straightforward: if the workload requires Vulkan or runs on a low-power platform, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the better choice. If the workload benefits from dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher pixel/texture throughput, the Quadro K4000M has the edge. In pure compute benchmarks, the data shows no meaningful winner.