GPU Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and Intel UHD Graphics 750 in adjacent performance percentiles, yet their benchmark results reveal a decisive split. The Quadro K4100M holds the 41st percentile against all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 sits at the 40th, a marginal difference in rank that belies the substantial gap in actual compute performance. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 7906, compared to 7441 for the Intel part, a difference that becomes stark in the only shared test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 manages 6743. That is a 35.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a commanding lead that defines the entire competitive landscape between these two mobile graphics solutions. The Quadro’s OpenCL score is its stronger result, exceeding its Geekbench Metal score of 6662, while the Intel part’s OpenCL result is actually its weaker showing, its Vulkan score reaches 8138.

Looking at the rivals surrounding each GPU clarifies the meaning of these numbers. The Quadro K4100M’s average score of 7906 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925), effectively performance parity with that older desktop card. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 by just 1.7% (8039) and the GeForce GTX 880M by the same margin (8040), while sitting 1.8% behind the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053). This is a tightly clustered field, and the Quadro holds its own against all of them, never falling more than two points behind any rival.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750, by contrast, anchors a slightly lower cluster. Its average of 7441 puts it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7425). More notably, it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 by 0.4% (7472) and the Intel Arc A310 by 1.4% (7550). The Intel integrated part is not dramatically outpaced by these discrete competitors, but it sits in a lower performance tier than the Quadro’s neighborhood.

The delta between the two is not a subtle margin. The Quadro’s 35.7% OpenCL lead over the Intel part is larger than the gap between the Intel part and any of its own nearest rivals, and it is larger than the gap between the Quadro and any of its rivals. In practical terms, the Quadro K4100M is operating roughly a full performance tier above the UHD Graphics 750, even though their percentile rankings differ by only one point.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and process nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip built on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses the Rocket Lake chip on Intel’s 14 nm+++ process, and the benchmark database does not list transistor count, die size, or density for this part, so those figures remain unspecified.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro K4100M fields 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 4.5x advantage in shader count for NVIDIA, a 6x advantage in TMUs, and a 4x advantage in ROPs. These are the raw building blocks that explain the performance gap.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic range. The Intel part operates at 300 MHz base and boosts to 1300 MHz, a 4.3x multiplier from idle to peak. Despite the Intel part’s higher peak clock, its far smaller execution unit count limits its throughput.

The memory subsystems are entirely different in kind. The Quadro has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 3.2 Gbps effective. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, a system-dependent bus width, and bandwidth that is likewise system dependent. This is a structural disadvantage for the Intel part in any memory-bandwidth-sensitive workload.

Power and form factor reflect their intended roles. The Quadro is a 100 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed as a discrete mobile workstation GPU. The Intel part is a 15 W IGP integrated into the processor, connected via the ring bus, with power delivery and cooling handled by the host platform. The Quadro’s 85 W higher power envelope buys the massive shader count and dedicated memory.

API support shows a generational split. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part has feature-level superiority in both DirectX and Vulkan, reflecting its newer design, but the Quadro’s raw throughput compensates in practice.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the faster GPU by a substantial margin. Its 35.7% OpenCL lead over the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is the headline number, and its average benchmark score of 7906 versus 7441 reinforces that conclusion. Every architectural indicator, shader count, TMU count, ROP count, dedicated memory bandwidth, favors the NVIDIA part.

The Intel UHD Graphics 750 is not without merit. Its Vulkan score of 8138 exceeds its OpenCL score, indicating a different performance profile depending on the API. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, both newer API versions than what the Quadro offers. Its 15 W power draw is a fraction of the Quadro’s 100 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable systems where battery life and thermals are paramount.

Who should pick which? Users needing maximum compute throughput for GPU-accelerated workloads, OpenCL-heavy tasks, rendering, or compute, should choose the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M, as its 35.7% advantage in the shared benchmark is decisive. Users whose workloads leverage Vulkan specifically may find the Intel part more capable, given its 8138 Vulkan score versus the Quadro’s absence of a Vulkan benchmark result in the data. The Quadro’s 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory also makes it the choice for datasets that exceed what system-shared memory can efficiently handle.

The Quadro K4100M is end-of-life, as is the Intel UHD Graphics 750, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. The Quadro’s closest rivals, the GeForce GTX 460, Quadro P5000, and GTX 880M, are all within 1.8% of its average score, indicating it is well-matched against its contemporaries. The Intel part’s rivals, including the GeForce GTX 1650 and Arc A310, are similarly close, but at a lower absolute performance level.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M and Intel UHD Graphics 750, per the benchmark database:

• Chip: GK104 vs Rocket Lake
• Architecture: Kepler vs Generation 12.1
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) vs HD Graphics (Rocket Lake)
• Process Node: 28 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm+++ (Intel)
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs not specified
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs not specified
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² vs not specified
• Base Clock: 706 MHz vs 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 706 MHz vs 1300 MHz
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR5, 256-bit, 102.4 GB/s vs System Shared
• Shading Units: 1152 vs 256
• TMUs: 96 vs 16
• ROPs: 32 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 16.94 GPixel/s vs 10.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 67.78 GTexel/s vs 20.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.627 TFLOPS vs 665.6 GFLOPS
• FP16: not specified vs 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 100 W vs 15 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• Power Connectors: None vs not specified
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.175 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2013-07-22 vs 2021-03-29
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M vs not specified
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M vs not specified
• Launch MSRP: 1,499 USD vs not specified

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has an average benchmark score of 7906, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K4100M in the shared OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K4100M scores 9149 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Intel UHD Graphics 750’s 6743 by 35.7%.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 750 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in Vulkan. The Intel part scores 8138 in Geekbench Vulkan, while no Vulkan benchmark result is listed for the Quadro K4100M.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M uses 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has 256 shading units.

Q: What are the power draw figures for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Intel UHD Graphics 750 has a TDP of 15 W.