Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs HD Graphics 4400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 4400 with Iris Pro Graphics P6300, including specs and performance data.
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 outperforms HD Graphics 4400 by a whopping 207% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1029 | 695 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.66 | 19.07 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 (2013) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT2 | Broadwell GT3e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 September 2013 (11 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 cores | 160 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.00 | 38.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.304 TFLOPS | 0.6144 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 6 |
| TMUs | 20 | 48 |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 type | System Shared | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.80 |
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 12
−192%
| 35−40
+192%
|
| Full HD | 10
−200%
| 30−35
+200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
−193%
|
85−90
+193%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
This is how HD Graphics 4400 and Iris Pro Graphics P6300 compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is 192% faster in 900p
- Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.34 | 4.11 |
| Recency | 3 September 2013 | 5 September 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 15 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 has a 206.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4400 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 4400 is a notebook 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.
