Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs Quadro M2200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2200 with Iris Pro Graphics P6300, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2200
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
11.05
+162%

M2200 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics P6300 by a whopping 162% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking420677
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.9119.44
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameGM206Broadwell GT3e
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date11 January 2017 (7 years ago)5 September 2014 (10 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1024384
Core clock speed695 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1036 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate66.3038.40
Floating-point processing power2.122 TFLOPS0.6144 TFLOPS
ROPs326
TMUs6448

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)IGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1377 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth88 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (11_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.80
CUDA5.2-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M2200 11.05
+162%
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 4.21

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro M2200 4262
+162%
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 1625

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD43
+169%
16−18
−169%
4K14
+180%
5−6
−180%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+192%
12−14
−192%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+170%
27−30
−170%
Hitman 3 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+181%
21−24
−181%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+175%
24−27
−175%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+192%
12−14
−192%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+170%
27−30
−170%
Hitman 3 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+181%
21−24
−181%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+190%
10−11
−190%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+175%
24−27
−175%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+170%
27−30
−170%
Hitman 3 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+181%
21−24
−181%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+200%
12−14
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+186%
7−8
−186%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+175%
24−27
−175%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+183%
18−20
−183%
Hitman 3 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+167%
6−7
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+188%
24−27
−188%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+178%
18−20
−178%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+225%
4−5
−225%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%

This is how Quadro M2200 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M2200 is 169% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro M2200 is 180% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.05 4.21
Recency 11 January 2017 5 September 2014
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro M2200 has a 162.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

Iris Pro Graphics P6300, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 266.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics P6300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation card while Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M2200
Quadro M2200
Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Iris Pro Graphics P6300

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 371 vote

Rate Quadro M2200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 13 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics P6300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.