T400 4 GB vs Iris Graphics 6100

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Graphics 6100 with T400 4 GB, including specs and performance data.

Iris Graphics 6100
2015
15 Watt
2.32

T400 4 GB outperforms Iris Graphics 6100 by a whopping 320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking844453
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.7122.48
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBroadwell GT3TU117
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date5 January 2015 (9 years ago)6 May 2021 (3 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 cores384384
Core clock speed300 MHz420 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1425 MHz
Number of transistors189 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0034.20
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS1.094 TFLOPS
ROPs616
TMUs4824

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x16
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data80 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent3x mini-DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA-7.5

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.

Iris Graphics 6100 2.32
T400 4 GB 9.74
+320%

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.

Iris Graphics 6100 894
T400 4 GB 3760
+321%

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 HD14
−293%
55−60
+293%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−317%
75−80
+317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−300%
40−45
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−317%
150−160
+317%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−317%
75−80
+317%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−300%
40−45
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−293%
55−60
+293%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−317%
150−160
+317%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−275%
30−33
+275%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−317%
75−80
+317%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−300%
40−45
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−317%
50−55
+317%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−317%
150−160
+317%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
−309%
45−50
+309%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%

This is how Iris Graphics 6100 and T400 4 GB compete in popular games:

  • T400 4 GB is 293% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.32 9.74
Recency 5 January 2015 6 May 2021
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 30 Watt

Iris Graphics 6100 has 100% lower power consumption.

T400 4 GB, on the other hand, has a 319.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The T400 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Graphics 6100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Graphics 6100 is a desktop card while T400 4 GB is a workstation 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.


Intel Iris Graphics 6100
Iris Graphics 6100
NVIDIA T400 4 GB
T400 4 GB

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.


3.3 122 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 6100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 57 votes

Rate T400 4 GB 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.