Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs Intel UHD Graphics P750 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300

The database shows a clear overall winner in raw compute performance, but the story is more nuanced when you look at the underlying specifications. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6,554 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5,712. This places the P750 in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the P6300 sits in the 33rd percentile. The delta between them is not enormous, but it is consistent across the one benchmark recorded. Both parts are end-of-life integrated graphics, so the comparison is about what each can still do in legacy systems rather than future upgrades.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the P750 wins it decisively. The P750 delivers 6,554 points versus 5,712 for the P6300, a 14.7% advantage. That gap is meaningful for integrated graphics, where every bit of compute headroom matters. The P750's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6,581 (0.4% ahead of the P750) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6,513 (0.6% behind). The P6300, by contrast, sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX at 5,721 (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5,731 (0.3% ahead). So while the P750 beats the P6300 by a solid margin, both parts are competing in a narrow band of performance around their respective scores.

The P750's win comes from a combination of a higher boost clock and a significantly higher pixel and texture throughput. The P750 runs at a base clock of 350 MHz and boosts to 1,300 MHz, while the P6300 starts at 300 MHz and only boosts to 800 MHz. The P750 also has a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s, versus 4.800 GPixel/s and 38.40 GTexel/s for the P6300. The pixel rate difference is especially stark, with the P750 offering nearly nine times the pixel throughput. That does not directly translate to nine times the real-world performance, but it does explain why the P750 pulls ahead in compute workloads that rely on fill rates.

Where Each One Wins

The P750 is the winner in the only recorded benchmark, so it takes the compute crown. It also has a higher FP32 throughput at 665.6 GFLOPS versus 614.4 GFLOPS for the P6300, which is about an 8.3% advantage. That aligns with the 14.7% Geekbench OpenCL lead, since OpenCL workloads often stress FP32 math. The P750 also supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the P6300 has no recorded FP16 capability. For anyone running mixed-precision workloads or applications that can use half-precision math, the P750 has a clear edge.

The P6300 does have one structural advantage: more shading units. It packs 384 shading units versus 256 for the P750. However, the P6300's lower clocks (800 MHz boost versus 1,300 MHz) and far lower texture rate (38.40 GTexel/s versus 83.20 GTexel/s) mean that extra shading hardware does not translate into higher benchmark scores. The P6300 also has more TMUs at 48 versus 64 for the P750, but that is a narrower margin. The P6300's only real win in the spec sheet is its release date: it launched in 2014, making it an older part, but that is not a performance advantage.

For use cases, the P750 is better suited to any task that involves compute acceleration, such as OpenCL-based encoding, image processing, or light GPU-accelerated workloads. The P6300, while slower in raw numbers, still holds its own in basic 2D and legacy 3D applications where the extra shading units might help in specific driver-optimized scenarios. The database does not include gaming benchmarks, so any claim about gaming performance would be speculative. What the data does show is that the P750 is the stronger compute part, and the P6300 is the older, slower alternative.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The P750 is built on Generation 12.1, which Intel markets as HD Graphics-W based on the Rocket Lake chip. The process node is 14 nm+++, a refined version of Intel's 14 nm process. The P6300 is Generation 8.0, based on the Broadwell GT3e chip, and it uses a plain 14 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel and use a Ring Bus interface, but the architectural gap is significant: the P750 is roughly four generations newer.

The memory subsystems are identical in concept: both use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. There is no dedicated VRAM on either part, so performance scales with the host system's RAM speed and configuration. The P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the P6300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. That is a clear API advantage for the P750, especially for Vulkan, where the newer version supports more features. Both parts have a 15 W TDP, making them comparable in power draw, and both are IGP slot-width parts with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

The shading unit counts differ: the P750 has 256 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the P6300 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The ROP count is the most striking difference. The P6300's 6 ROPs are extremely low, which explains its 4.800 GPixel/s pixel rate. The P750's 32 ROPs allow for 41.60 GPixel/s. That is a fundamental architectural limitation for the P6300 in any pixel-bound workload. The P750 also has a higher texture rate at 83.20 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s, despite having fewer TMUs, because of its much higher clock speed.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel UHD Graphics P750 as the stronger GPU in every measurable way. It wins the only benchmark by 14.7%, has higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, a far higher pixel rate, a much higher boost clock, and newer API support. The P6300's only advantages are more shading units and an older release date, neither of which helps in the recorded benchmark. For anyone choosing between these two for a legacy system, the P750 is the obvious pick if it is available and compatible with the platform.

The P6300 might still be worth considering in a system where the host CPU is a Broadwell part and the P750 is not an option due to socket or chipset limitations. In that scenario, the P6300 provides 5,712 Geekbench OpenCL points, which is not far off from some discrete mobile GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (5,721) or the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5,691). But if the choice is between these two specific parts, the P750's 6,554 score and 38th percentile ranking versus the P6300's 33rd percentile make it the better performer. The P750 is also the more modern part architecturally, which should mean better driver support and feature compatibility, although the database does not include driver-specific data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6,554, which is 14.7% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300's 5,712.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 have more shading units?

A: Yes, the P6300 has 384 shading units, while the P750 has 256.

Q: Why does the P750 win despite having fewer shading units?

A: The P750 has a much higher boost clock (1,300 MHz versus 800 MHz) and a far higher pixel rate (41.60 GPixel/s versus 4.800 GPixel/s), which more than compensates for the lower shading unit count.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The P750 delivers 665.6 GFLOPS, while the P6300 delivers 614.4 GFLOPS, an advantage of roughly 8.3% for the P750.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the P6300 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: Are both GPUs the same power draw?

A: Yes, both have a TDP of 15 W and use system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics P750 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 |

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

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Generation 8.0 |

| Chip | Rocket Lake | Broadwell GT3e |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 14 nm |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,300 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 6 |

| Pixel Rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | 4.800 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.20 GTexel/s | 38.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 665.6 GFLOPS | 614.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | None listed |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2014-09-04 |