AMD FirePro M4150 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

# The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 over the AMD FirePro M4150. In the only directly comparable benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel part scores 5042 against AMD's 4013, a decisive 25.6% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial performance gap that defines the entire comparison. The Intel solution also carries a higher average benchmark score of 4360 compared to 4013 for the AMD FirePro M4150, reinforcing its overall edge in compute workloads.

Looking at the broader market context, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD FirePro M4150 rests just below at the 24th percentile. Both are firmly in entry-level territory, but the Intel part's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (only 0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (1.2% behind). The AMD FirePro M4150's closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (0.5% ahead), AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (0.9% behind), and NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (1.2% behind). This positioning suggests the Intel chip competes in a slightly higher performance tier than the AMD part.

For system builders, the choice hinges on platform and workload priorities. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 45 W TDP, designed for Haswell-based laptops and compact systems. The AMD FirePro M4150 is a discrete MXM module, built for professional mobile workstations. If the system already uses a Haswell processor, the Intel IGP offers superior raw compute performance without additional hardware. However, if the platform requires a discrete module with dedicated memory, the AMD FirePro M4150 provides that form factor, albeit with lower performance. The data suggests that for pure OpenCL throughput, the Intel solution is the stronger choice, but the AMD part has the advantage of being a self-contained module with its own 1024 MB GDDR5 frame buffer.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU performs better in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 25.6% higher than the AMD FirePro M4150's score of 4013. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it clearly favors Intel.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, trailing by only 0.6%, and it leads the NVIDIA GeForce 930M by 0.6%. The AMD FirePro M4150 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M by 0.5% but leads the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 by 1.2%.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, meaning it borrows from the host system's RAM. The AMD FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan, but the AMD FirePro M4150 has a newer OpenGL version (4.6) compared to Intel's OpenGL 4.3. The AMD part also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel GPU lists Vulkan 1.0.

Q: What are the physical form factors of these GPUs?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is built into the CPU package. The AMD FirePro M4150 is an MXM Module, a removable, standardized mobile graphics card.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 4.600 GPixel/s. However, the Intel part excels in texture rate and FP32 performance.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, and is fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. In contrast, the AMD FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, and is part of the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of different design priorities. The AMD FirePro M4150 has 950 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's transistor count and die size are not listed, but its 22 nm process node is more advanced than AMD's 28 nm node. The Intel part is integrated into a larger CPU package, while the AMD part is a standalone chip on an MXM module.

The compute architectures differ significantly. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and only 4 raster operation units (ROPs). The AMD FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units (20% more), but only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This creates an interesting imbalance: AMD has more raw shader cores but half the texture units of Intel. The Intel part's texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s is more than double the AMD part's 17.16 GTexel/s, despite the AMD chip having more shading units. Meanwhile, AMD's pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s exceeds Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s due to its doubled ROP count.

The FP32 compute performance also favors Intel. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 delivers 736.0 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M4150 manages 549.1 GFLOPS. This 34% advantage in raw floating-point throughput aligns with the OpenCL benchmark results. The bus interfaces differ as well: Intel uses a Ring Bus architecture typical of integrated graphics, while AMD employs a PCIe 3.0 x8 connection, reflecting its discrete nature. The AMD part also has explicit memory details, with 1024 MB GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while Intel shares system memory with bandwidth that is System Dependent.

# Specification Differences

The specifications diverge on nearly every measurable parameter. Starting with manufacturing, Intel uses a 22 nm process at its own foundry, while AMD outsources to TSMC for a 28 nm process. The AMD FirePro M4150 has a defined transistor count of 950 million and a die size of 77 mm², whereas the Intel part lists no transistor count or die size. The Intel chip has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz, while the AMD FirePro M4150 lists no base or boost clock speeds. Its memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory is a major differentiator. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 relies on System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has a fixed 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. This means the AMD part has predictable memory performance, while the Intel IGP's performance varies with the host system's RAM speed and configuration.

The compute unit counts differ: Intel has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs; AMD has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Notably, the Intel part has a much higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s vs. 17.16 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS vs. 549.1 GFLOPS), but the AMD part has a higher pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s vs. 4.600 GPixel/s). The TDP is listed as 45 W for Intel, while AMD's TDP is not provided. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while AMD is an MXM Module with PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support differs in OpenGL and Vulkan versions. The AMD FirePro M4150 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1). The release dates are close: Intel launched on June 2, 2013, and AMD on October 15, 2013. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD part has a predecessor (FirePro Mobility) and successor (Radeon Pro Mobile), while Intel lists neither.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a compelling story. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. This represents a 25.6% delta in favor of Intel. To put this in perspective, a 25.6% performance advantage is substantial in the entry-level GPU market, where differences of 1-2% are common among close rivals. For instance, the Intel GPU's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, is only 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M is 0.6% behind. The AMD FirePro M4150's closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, is 0.5% ahead. The gap between these two GPUs is more than 40 times larger than the typical differences seen in their respective rival clusters.

The average benchmark scores confirm the trend. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, while the AMD FirePro M4150 averages 4013. The Intel part's average is pulled down by its Vulkan score of 3677, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 5042. The AMD part has no Vulkan score listed, so its average equals its OpenCL score. This suggests that the Intel part may have more variable performance across different APIs, while the AMD part has a single data point.

In the wins count, Intel takes the sole head-to-head victory with 1 win, while AMD has 0 wins. The delta in OpenCL is 25.6%, which is the defining statistic of this comparison. This is not a case of one GPU barely edging out another; the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 decisively outperforms the AMD FirePro M4150 in compute workloads. The data implies that Intel's integrated solution, despite sharing system memory, achieves significantly higher throughput than AMD's discrete chip with dedicated GDDR5.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 5042 versus 4013 gives it a 25.6% advantage, and its FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS is 34% higher than the AMD part's 549.1 GFLOPS. The texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s is more than double the AMD FirePro M4150's 17.16 GTexel/s, making the Intel part particularly strong in texture-heavy workloads. With 40 TMUs, the Intel GPU has 67% more texture units than AMD's 24, and this architectural advantage translates directly into the texture rate differential. For applications that rely on floating-point math, such as scientific computing, video encoding, or general-purpose GPU compute via OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the superior choice.

The AMD FirePro M4150 has its own strengths, primarily in pixel processing and memory bandwidth. Its pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s exceeds Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s by 24%, thanks to its 8 ROPs versus Intel's 4. This matters for tasks that are fill-rate limited, such as certain rendering passes or display output operations. The AMD part also has dedicated 1024 MB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus, whereas the Intel IGP relies on System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. This means the AMD part offers predictable memory performance, which can be critical in professional workstation environments where consistent behavior is valued over peak throughput. The AMD FirePro M4150 also supports newer API versions, with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, compared to Intel's OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0, which may matter for compatibility with modern software.

In terms of market positioning, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at the 26th percentile sits just above the AMD FirePro M4150 at the 24th percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 0.6% ahead, a surprisingly close matchup for an integrated GPU from 2013. The AMD part's rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2000, which it leads by 1.2%. This suggests that despite the Intel part's compute advantage, both GPUs occupy a similar performance tier in the broader GPU landscape. The choice ultimately comes down to platform: if the system has an Intel Haswell processor with the GT3e IGP, the integrated solution provides the best compute performance at zero additional cost. If the system requires a discrete MXM module with dedicated memory and newer API support, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the appropriate selection, accepting its lower compute throughput.