Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile graphics solutions is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures raw compute throughput in a general-purpose workload. The database shows a clear, if modest, victory for the Intel UHD Graphics P750. The Intel part scores 6554 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 points. That represents a 9.5% advantage for the Intel solution, a meaningful gap in a single workload but hardly a dominant one.

Looking at the broader context, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6581 points, which is only 0.4% faster, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513 points, which trails by 0.6%. The AMD Radeon R7 M460 lands 0.9% ahead at 6612 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M sits 0.9% behind at 6493 points. These are tightly clustered results, meaning the P750 is competing in a dense pack of mid-range mobile parts where a few percentage points separate entire product tiers.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, by contrast, sits at the 34th percentile. Its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5987 points, essentially a dead heat at 0% difference. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 desktop variant scores 5982, just 0.1% behind. Interestingly, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server appears in the rival list at 5996 points, only 0.2% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000 points, also 0.2% ahead. The K4000M is thus surrounded by a group that is effectively indistinguishable in this benchmark, with the entire cluster spanning less than a fraction of a percent.

The interesting implication here is that despite being a professional mobile workstation part with a much larger memory bus and dedicated VRAM, the Quadro K4000M actually loses to an integrated graphics solution in raw compute. The 9.5% delta is not enormous, but it is consistent and recorded across the database's measurements. What makes this more curious is that the P750 achieves this with system-shared memory, a factor that normally penalizes sustained throughput in memory-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates a single benchmark category, Geekbench OpenCL, and in that category the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the outright winner. There are no other recorded tests where the Quadro K4000M takes the lead. This means that for general-purpose compute tasks such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, image processing filters, or physics simulations that rely on this API, the P750 should deliver roughly a tenth more throughput.

However, the architecture and memory configuration tell a different story for other types of workloads. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, providing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." In scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, such as large texture streaming, high-resolution rendering, or multi-tasking with the CPU competing for the same memory pool, the K4000M's dedicated VRAM is likely to be far more efficient. The database does not include a benchmark for this, but the memory subsystem specifications point in that direction.

The Intel P750 also has a much higher pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s compared to the K4000M's 12.02 GPixel/s. That is a significant advantage for fill-rate-bound operations like basic 2D compositing, simple fragment shaders, or display composition. The texture rate also favors Intel at 83.20 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s, suggesting that texturing-heavy workloads would run faster on the integrated part. Yet the K4000M has far more shading units: 960 versus 256. The higher shading unit count means the NVIDIA part is structured for more complex per-pixel and per-vertex work, even though its raw FP32 throughput of 1,153.9 GFLOPS is higher than the P750's 665.6 GFLOPS. The Geekbench result shows that the P750's higher clock speeds and architecture efficiency overcome that shading unit deficit in this particular test.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is built on Rocket Lake, using Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture, often referred to as HD Graphics-W. It is fabricated on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip, part of the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor counts reflect the generational gap: the GK104 packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². Intel does not list transistor count or die size for the P750, but its integrated nature means it shares the CPU die.

Clock behavior is another major divergence. The Intel part runs at a base clock of 350 MHz and boosts to 1300 MHz. The NVIDIA part is locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost, meaning it does not dynamically scale upward. The memory clock for the K4000M is 700 MHz, translating to 2.8 Gbps effective on its GDDR5 memory, while the P750 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated clock. This explains why the P750 can achieve competitive compute results despite having only 256 shading units: it runs at more than twice the clock speed of the K4000M.

Feature support also differs. The Intel P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The higher DirectX feature level on the Intel part, 12_1 versus 11_0, could matter for certain modern game titles or compute workloads that use DirectX 12 features. The Vulkan version is also newer on the Intel side. Both parts are end-of-life products, but the Intel chip is from a newer generation, which explains the updated API support.

The power envelope is dramatically different. The Intel P750 is rated at 15 W, whereas the Quadro K4000M draws 100 W. That is a 6.7x difference in power consumption. The P750 is an IGP, meaning it is integrated into the CPU package and uses the system's ring bus interface. The K4000M is an MXM module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), designed to be a replaceable component in laptops. The Quadro also has no power connectors, relying on the MXM slot for power delivery, while the Intel part has no connectors at all since it draws from the CPU socket.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the stronger part in the only benchmark where both are measured. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 9.5%, has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, supports a newer DirectX feature level, and does so at a fraction of the power draw: 15 W versus 100 W. For users whose primary concern is compute throughput in OpenCL applications, or who need a low-power integrated solution, the P750 is clearly the better choice based on the database.

The Quadro K4000M, however, is not without justification. It offers 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is an order-of-magnitude advantage in memory robustness compared to system-shared memory. It also has far more shading units at 960, and a higher raw FP32 throughput at 1,153.9 GFLOPS. The Geekbench result shows that the P750's higher clocks win that specific test, but workloads that are heavily memory-bound or that can utilize massive parallelism across many shading units might favor the NVIDIA part. The K4000M's 100 W power draw is a cost, but in a workstation laptop with adequate cooling, that power buys dedicated memory and a larger compute core count.

The choice depends on the workload. For integrated, low-power systems where the CPU and GPU share memory and the goal is modest compute acceleration, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 delivers better measured performance per the database. For professional applications that require dedicated VRAM stability, such as CAD or 3D modeling with large assets, the Quadro K4000M's memory configuration is a structural advantage that no benchmark in the database directly measures. The data supports the P750 in raw compute, but the K4000M's design targets a different set of priorities.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 scores 6554 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 points, a 9.5% difference in favor of Intel.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses system-shared memory with a size described as "System Shared." The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is rated at 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is rated at 100 W.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s.

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 NVIDIA Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the Intel UHD Graphics P750 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics P750 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000M |

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

| Chip | Rocket Lake | GK104 |

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | 601 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 700 MHz, 2.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 256 | 960 |

| TMUs | 64 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | 12.02 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.20 GTexel/s | 48.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 665.6 GFLOPS | 1,153.9 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

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

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

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

| Release Date | Not listed | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Not listed | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 6554 | 5986 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 38 | 34 |