AMD FirePro M4000 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs AMD FirePro M4000: a matchup between an integrated graphics solution and a dedicated mobile workstation GPU. The recorded data shows a clear, though narrow, overall win for the AMD part, driven entirely by its performance in a single compute benchmark. The Intel solution counters with a broader feature set and significantly lower power consumption.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556. This represents a 17.7% advantage for the AMD FirePro M4000. This is a decisive margin in a single test, indicating that for raw general-purpose compute workloads, the dedicated GPU holds a substantial lead.

However, this is the only head-to-head data point. The Intel part has additional benchmark scores for Geekbench Metal (7764) and Geekbench Vulkan (6032), which the AMD FirePro M4000 does not have recorded. This is a crucial distinction. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 shows strong performance in these newer API tests, particularly the Metal score which is significantly higher than its OpenCL result. The absence of these results for the AMD part means the database does not capture its performance in these specific API environments.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117 across all its recorded tests, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD FirePro M4000, with only its single OpenCL score, has an average of 5537 and sits in the 32nd percentile. This means that while the AMD part wins the direct comparison, the Intel part's overall average is actually 10.5% higher due to its strong showings in the Metal and Vulkan tests.

The database places both parts in similar competitive tiers. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (average score 6137, a 0.3% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (average score 6049, a 1.1% difference). The AMD FirePro M4000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (average score 5604, a 1.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average score 5483, a 1% difference). This suggests that while the AMD part has a clear edge in the one test they share, the Intel part is competitive with a different, generally newer set of discrete GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in the compute-heavy OpenCL benchmark. Its score of 5537 is 17.7% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556. This points to its strength in applications that leverage general-purpose GPU computing, such as rendering, scientific simulations, and certain professional workloads. The AMD part also has a higher pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s vs 6.60 GPixel/s) and double the ROPs (16 vs 6), which translates to a clear advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution display output and certain post-processing effects.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in the newer graphics API benchmarks. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 6032 are strong results that are not matched by any recorded data for the AMD FirePro M4000. This suggests the Intel part is better optimized for modern graphics APIs, which are becoming increasingly common in both gaming and professional applications. Its higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s) and greater number of TMUs (48 vs 32) indicate a theoretical advantage in texture-heavy workloads, which could explain its stronger performance in these modern API tests.

The Intel part also wins decisively on power. Its TDP is 15 W, compared to the AMD FirePro M4000's 33 W. This is a more than two-fold difference, making the Intel solution far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal management are critical. The AMD part, with its higher power draw, requires the larger MXM Module form factor, while the Intel part is an IGP that uses the system's existing cooling and power delivery.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is based on the Broadwell GT3e chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel. It uses the Generation 8.0 architecture. The AMD FirePro M4000, in contrast, uses the Chelsea chip with the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the newer 14 nm node allows Intel to pack more efficiency into a smaller power envelope.

The AMD FirePro M4000 has more raw compute units in some respects. It has 512 shading units, compared to the Intel's 384. It also has more ROPs (16 vs 6). However, the Intel part has more TMUs (48 vs 32). The clock speeds differ as well. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The AMD part's base and boost clocks are not specified in the database, but its memory is clocked at 1000 MHz, with a 4 Gbps effective rate.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The AMD FirePro M4000 has a dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses System Shared memory, meaning it draws from the main system RAM. Its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent". This means the Intel part's memory performance is highly variable and depends on the system's RAM configuration, while the AMD part has predictable, dedicated bandwidth.

The feature sets also differ. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.0. However, the AMD FirePro M4000 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. This gives the AMD part a more modern API support profile, which can be important for compatibility with newer professional software.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 is faster, scoring 5537 compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556, a 17.7% difference.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 have any advantages in benchmarks?

A: Yes. It has recorded scores for Geekbench Metal (7764) and Geekbench Vulkan (6032), which are not present for the AMD FirePro M4000.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a TDP of 15 W, while the AMD FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W.

Q: How much dedicated memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses System Shared memory, so it has no dedicated memory of its own.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on a 14 nm process, while the AMD FirePro M4000 is built on a 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a higher average benchmark score of 6117, compared to the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. For users who prioritize raw compute performance in a single, well-defined workload, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the clear choice. Its 17.7% lead in OpenCL performance and its dedicated memory subsystem make it a more capable tool for GPU-accelerated compute tasks. Its higher pixel rate and ROP count also suggest it is better for traditional pixel-pushing workloads.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 should not be dismissed. Its significantly higher scores in Geekbench Metal and Vulkan indicate that it is better optimized for modern graphics APIs. Its average benchmark score is 10.5% higher than the AMD part, and it places in a higher percentile of all GPUs. This suggests that for applications that use these newer APIs, the Intel part may offer a better experience.

The TDP difference is also a major deciding factor. The Intel part consumes less than half the power of the AMD part (15 W vs 33 W). This makes it the only viable option for ultra-portable systems where battery life is paramount. The AMD part's higher power draw necessitates a bulkier MXM Module form factor, which is typically found in larger, workstation-class laptops.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the workload and the platform. The AMD FirePro M4000 is the stronger performer in compute-heavy or legacy-API scenarios and offers the stability of dedicated memory. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the better choice for modern-API performance, efficiency, and integration into a low-power mobile platform.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | AMD FirePro M4000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | Chelsea |

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 6 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 10.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-A (3.0) |

| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.2.170 |