Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs GeForce 710M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 710M with Iris Pro Graphics P6300, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 710M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.07

Iris Pro Graphics P6300 outperforms 710M by a whopping 256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1120735
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.4319.35
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameGK208Broadwell GT3e
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date24 July 2013 (12 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 cores192384
Core clock speed719 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors915 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate11.5038.40
Floating-point processing power0.2761 TFLOPS0.6144 TFLOPS
ROPs86
TMUs1648

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8IGP
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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Standard memory configurationDDR3no data
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 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
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 2560x1600no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 2560x1600no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.12.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.80
CUDA+-

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.

GeForce 710M 1.07
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 3.81
+256%

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.

GeForce 710M 449
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 1596
+255%

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
God of War 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
God of War 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Valorant 30−35
−255%
110−120
+255%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−246%
90−95
+246%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Dota 2 14−16
−233%
50−55
+233%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
God of War 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Valorant 30−35
−255%
110−120
+255%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Dota 2 14−16
−233%
50−55
+233%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
God of War 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Valorant 30−35
−255%
110−120
+255%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−218%
35−40
+218%
Valorant 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−233%
50−55
+233%
Valorant 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
God of War 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.07 3.81
Recency 24 July 2013 5 September 2014
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a 256.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 710M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 710M is a notebook graphics card while Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is a desktop one.

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 GeForce 710M
GeForce 710M
Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Iris Pro Graphics P6300

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.


3.2 748 votes

Rate GeForce 710M 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 GeForce 710M or Iris Pro Graphics P6300, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.