Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 records an average benchmark score of 6554, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 averages 5982. The Intel part sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Quadro K4000 is at the 34th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro K4000 wins the only head-to-head test, scoring 6816 against the Intel UHD Graphics P750's 6554, a 3.8% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750's closest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6581, 0.4% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.6% behind), AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, 0.9% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493, 0.9% behind). The Quadro K4000's closest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0.1% ahead), AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0.1% ahead), AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.2% behind), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, 0.2% ahead).

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses System Shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What APIs does each GPU support?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor, while the Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP, requires one 6-pin power connector, and lists a 250 W suggested power supply.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 come from completely different design lineages. Intel's part is built on Rocket Lake silicon using the Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The Quadro K4000 is a Kepler-generation professional GPU from NVIDIA, built on the GK106 chip using TSMC's 28 nm process. The foundry split is notable: Intel fabricates its own chip, while TSMC produces NVIDIA's.

The transistor budgets reflect the size gap between these parts. The Quadro K4000 contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, but its integrated nature on the Rocket Lake package is clear from the "IGP" slot width and Ring Bus interface.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 packs 256 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro K4000 counters with 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. NVIDIA's part has three times the shading units, but Intel's integrated GPU has more ROPs. Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores.

Theoretical throughput tells a mixed story. The Intel part posts 665.6 GFLOPS FP32 and 1,331.2 GFLOPS FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio), with pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s. The Quadro K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS FP32, nearly double Intel's FP32 figure, but its pixel rate is only 12.96 GPixel/s and texture rate 51.84 GTexel/s. The Intel GPU's higher ROP count and clock behavior explain its fill-rate advantage despite the raw shader deficit.

Clock behavior is another divergence. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 lists a 350 MHz base clock and 1300 MHz boost. The Quadro K4000 has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1404 MHz, translating to 5.6 Gbps effective. The Intel part runs its memory as System Shared, while the Quadro uses dedicated GDDR5.

The production status for both is end-of-life, though the Quadro K4000 has a release date of 2013-02-28 and lists a predecessor (Quadro Fermi) and successor (Quadro Maxwell). The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no release date or product lineage recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 takes the win with a score of 6816 versus the Intel UHD Graphics P750's 6554. That is a 3.8% margin in NVIDIA's favor. The result aligns with the raw FP32 figures, where the Quadro K4000's 1,244.2 GFLOPS nearly doubles the Intel part's 665.6 GFLOPS, but the benchmark gap is far smaller than the compute gap would suggest.

The Intel UHD Graphics P750's score of 6554 places it just below the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6581, 0.4% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, 0.9% ahead), while sitting above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513, 0.6% behind) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493, 0.9% behind). The Quadro K4000's OpenCL score of 6816 is not directly compared to those rivals in the database, but its average benchmark score of 5982 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0.1% ahead), AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0.1% ahead), AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.2% behind), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, 0.2% ahead).

The Quadro K4000 also records results in two other APIs: 4166 in Geekbench Metal and 6964 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no corresponding entries in those tests, so no cross-API comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics P750 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

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

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Kepler |

| Process node | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 2,540 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 221 mm² |

| Transistor density | Not recorded | 11.5M / mm² |

| Shading units | 256 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 24 |

| FP32 | 665.6 GFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not recorded |

| Pixel rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 83.20 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| Memory size | System Shared | 3 GB |

| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | System Shared | 192 bit |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 80 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | None recorded | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 241 mm (9.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

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

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but nuanced conclusion. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, 6816 to 6554 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 3.8% margin. It also has a substantial advantage in raw FP32 compute (1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 665.6 GFLOPS) and dedicated GDDR5 memory with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads that stress raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, the Quadro K4000 is the stronger part.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 holds a higher average benchmark score (6554 versus 5982) and a better overall percentile ranking (38th versus 34th). It also wins on fill-rate metrics: 41.60 GPixel/s versus 12.96 GPixel/s and 83.20 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s. Its 15 W TDP versus 80 W means it draws far less power, and its integrated design requires no power connectors or dedicated slot. The Vulkan support is also newer (1.4 versus 1.2.175), and DirectX feature level is higher (12_1 versus 11_0).

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the choice for systems where the GPU is a secondary consideration, integrated into the processor and drawing minimal power. The Quadro K4000 is the choice when dedicated memory, professional form factor, and higher compute throughput matter more than efficiency. Neither part is current; both are end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins in raw compute and memory-bound scenarios. Its FP32 output of 1,244.2 GFLOPS is roughly 87% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics P750's 665.6 GFLOPS. The 3 GB GDDR5 pool with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth and 192-bit bus provides dedicated, predictable memory performance, whereas the Intel part relies on System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro K4000 also wins the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head, and it records a strong 6964 in Geekbench Vulkan, a test the Intel part does not appear in.

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins in fill-rate and efficiency metrics. Its 32 ROPs deliver 41.60 GPixel/s, more than triple the Quadro K4000's 12.96 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s exceeds the Quadro's 51.84 GTexel/s. The 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 80 W, and the integrated design eliminates the need for a power connector or slot. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, newer feature levels than the Quadro's DirectX 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175. Its average benchmark score of 6554 beats the Quadro's 5982, and its 38th percentile ranking tops the Quadro's 34th.

For pixel-bound or power-constrained environments, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 has the edge. For compute-heavy tasks with demanding memory requirements, the Quadro K4000 is the better fit. The recorded data does not include gaming, ray tracing, or AI workloads, so conclusions must stay within what the benchmarks and specifications show.