Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs Quadro FX 350M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 350M with Iris Pro Graphics P6300, including specs and performance data.

FX 350M
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 15 Watt
0.11

Pro Graphics P6300 outperforms 350M by a whopping 3373% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1527769
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.5719.70
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameG72Broadwell GT3e
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date13 March 2006 (20 years ago)5 September 2014 (11 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores7384
Core clock speed450 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed450 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors112 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate1.80038.40
Floating-point processing powerno data0.6144 TFLOPS
ROPs26
TMUs448

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount256 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed450 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (11_1)
Shader Model3.05.1
OpenGL2.14.4
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.1.80

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FX 350M 0.11
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 3.82
+3373%

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.

FX 350M 44
Samples: 21
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 1591
+3516%
Samples: 21

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Palworld 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
Palworld 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−3329%
240−250
+3329%
Valorant 24−27
−3233%
800−850
+3233%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−11
−2900%
300−310
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
−3275%
270−280
+3275%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
Palworld 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−3329%
240−250
+3329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3300%
170−180
+3300%
Valorant 24−27
−3233%
800−850
+3233%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
−3275%
270−280
+3275%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−3329%
240−250
+3329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3300%
170−180
+3300%
Valorant 24−27
−3233%
800−850
+3233%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−3150%
65−70
+3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%

1440p
Epic

Palworld 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−3233%
500−550
+3233%
Valorant 4−5
−3150%
130−140
+3150%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.11 3.82
Recency 13 March 2006 5 September 2014
Chip lithography 90 nm 14 nm

Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a 3373% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 350M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

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.


4 2 votes

Rate Quadro FX 350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 16 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 350M or Iris Pro Graphics P6300, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.