Intel UHD Graphics P750 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M records an average benchmark score of 7906, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 records 6554. The Quadro sits at the 41st percentile among all GPUs, and the Intel part sits at the 38th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4100M scores 9149 versus 6554 for the Intel UHD Graphics P750, a 39.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the Quadro K4100M's 16.94 GPixel/s, despite the Quadro winning the overall compute benchmark.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The Quadro K4100M carries a 100 W TDP, while the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is rated at only 15 W. The Intel part is an integrated IGP, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM module.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, and the Intel part has a newer Vulkan version at 1.4 versus 1.2.175.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro K4100M?

A: The Quadro K4100M had a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It integrates 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is based on the Rocket Lake chip using Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture, built on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. No transistor count, die size, or density figures are recorded for the Intel part.

The compute configuration differs sharply. The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has 256 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having far fewer shaders, the Intel part achieves a higher pixel rate (41.60 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (83.20 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s). This suggests the Intel design relies on higher clock behavior or a different execution structure, though the raw FP32 throughput tells another story: the Quadro delivers 1.627 TFLOPS, while the Intel part delivers 665.6 GFLOPS. The Intel GPU does support FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS (2:1), a capability the Quadro does not record.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics P750 uses System Shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth, and its memory clock is listed as System Shared as well. The Intel part connects to the rest of the system via a Ring Bus interface, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) as its bus interface.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz base and boost, while the Intel part has a 350 MHz base clock and a 1300 MHz boost clock. The Quadro's memory is rated at 800 MHz, or 3.2 Gbps effective. The Intel part has no discrete memory clock specification because it relies on shared system memory. The Quadro's generation listing places it in the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) line, with predecessors and successors in the Quadro Fermi-M and Maxwell-M series. The Intel part is listed under HD Graphics-W (Rocket Lake). Both are end-of-life products in the database.

Slot width for the Quadro is MXM Module, while the Intel part is IGP. Power connectors are listed as None for the Quadro, and None for the Intel part is not listed. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for the Quadro and Motherboard Dependent for the Intel part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data contains a single shared test: Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins. The Quadro scores 9149 against the Intel UHD Graphics P750's 6554, a 39.6% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This is the only recorded overlapping benchmark, so it defines the entire head-to-head comparison.

Context from nearest rivals helps interpret that result. The Quadro's average score of 7906 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7925), 1.7% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8039), 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8040), and 1.8% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053). The Intel UHD Graphics P750's average score of 6554 places it 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7730M (6581), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513), 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612), and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493).

The database also records a separate Geekbench Metal score for the Quadro K4100M of 6662, which has no counterpart for the Intel part. This means the Quadro's compute capability is documented across two API paths, while the Intel part only has the OpenCL result.

The 39.6% OpenCL lead is the headline number. It is consistent with the raw FP32 throughput difference: the Quadro's 1.627 TFLOPS is roughly 2.4 times the Intel part's 665.6 GFLOPS, though the benchmark gap is smaller than that ratio. The Intel part's higher pixel and texture rates (41.60 GPixel/s and 83.20 GTexel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s) do not translate into a compute win in the recorded test. The data indicates the Intel architecture's strengths in fill-rate-heavy workloads do not carry over to OpenCL compute.

The relative positions in the percentile rankings reinforce the gap. The Quadro sits at the 41st percentile, the Intel part at the 38th. That three-percentile spread is modest, but the average score difference of 1,352 points (7906 versus 6554) is not. When the Quadro is compared to its nearest rivals, it is effectively at parity with the GTX 460, within a couple of percent of several other mid-range parts. The Intel part is similarly clustered around older mobile and entry desktop GPUs, but in a lower scoring band.

The wins tally in the head-to-head is 1 for the Quadro and 0 for the Intel part. The single win is the OpenCL benchmark, and no other overlapping tests are recorded to balance the comparison.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the stronger compute GPU. It wins the only shared benchmark by 39.6%, carries a higher average score (7906 versus 6554), and reaches a higher percentile (41 versus 38). Its OpenCL score of 9149 is the standout figure, and it also has a recorded Metal score of 6662 that the Intel part cannot match.

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the more efficient part in terms of power, with a 15 W TDP compared to 100 W, and it is an integrated IGP, which means no separate module slot or power connector. It also has a newer DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0), a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.175), and higher pixel and texture rates. For workloads that are fill-rate bound, the Intel part's 41.60 GPixel/s and 83.20 GTexel/s outperform the Quadro's 16.28 GPixel/s and 67.78 GTexel/s. The Intel part also enables FP16 support with 1,331.2 GFLOPS, which the Quadro does not list.

Users who need maximum OpenCL compute should choose the Quadro K4100M. Its 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth give it a decisive edge in the recorded compute benchmark. The 39.6% OpenCL lead is substantial, and its nearest rivals in the database (GTX 460, Quadro P5000, GTX 880M, GTX 650 Ti) all sit within roughly two percent of its average score, meaning it is a known quantity in that performance class.

Users who prioritize low power consumption, modern API support, or fill-rate throughput should consider the Intel UHD Graphics P750. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower, and its DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 support are ahead of the Quadro's. The higher pixel and texture rates suggest it handles rasterization-bound tasks better, even if its compute score is lower. The Intel part's nearest rivals (Radeon HD 7730M, GTX 670M, Radeon R7 M460, GT 555M) all cluster within one percent of its average score, indicating it is competitive in its own band.

The production status of both is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof choice. The Quadro carries a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, which the database records, while the Intel part has no launch MSRP. The choice comes down to workload: compute-heavy tasks favor the Quadro K4100M by a wide margin, while power-sensitive or fill-rate-sensitive systems favor the Intel UHD Graphics P750.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M | Intel UHD Graphics P750 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 12.1 |

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

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | Not recorded |

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

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1152 | 256 |

| TMUs | 96 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.94 GPixel/s | 41.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 67.78 GTexel/s | 83.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.627 TFLOPS | 665.6 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 100 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

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

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| Average Benchmark Score | 7906 | 6554 |

| Percentile | 41 | 38 |