GPU Comparison

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two end-of-life mobile and workstation parts: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 dominates in OpenCL compute, while the AMD FirePro W2100 takes the Vulkan crown. Neither GPU is a clear overall winner; instead, each claims a distinct workload territory. The Intel part lands at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, with the AMD part just behind at the 25th percentile, placing both firmly in entry-level territory despite their different architectures and release dates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this comparison is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 against the AMD FirePro W2100’s 4093. That is a 23.2% advantage for Intel, a decisive margin that reflects the Iris Pro’s raw compute throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro’s 435.2 GFLOPS. In floating-point-heavy tasks that scale well across parallel cores, the Intel part is simply operating in a different class.

The Vulkan test flips the script entirely. Here the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4497, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 manages only 3677. That is an 18.2% swing in AMD’s favor. Notably, the Intel part’s Vulkan score is far below its own OpenCL score, suggesting its Generation 7.5 architecture handles the newer API less efficiently. The AMD part, built on GCN 1.0, shows greater consistency across both APIs, with its Vulkan result actually exceeding its OpenCL result.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Intel part averages 4360 across both tests, while the AMD part averages 4295. That puts Intel ahead by roughly 1.5%, a margin so thin it falls within the noise of the nearest rival comparisons. Intel’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, sits at 4388 (0.6% ahead of Intel), while AMD’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, sits at 4282 (0.3% behind AMD). The two parts are effectively peers in overall performance, with their individual test results telling the real story.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 23.2% lead in that benchmark is backed by a hardware specification that favors parallel throughput: 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The FP32 rating of 736.0 GFLOPS is nearly 70% higher than the AMD part’s 435.2 GFLOPS, which explains why OpenCL tasks that leverage raw shader math show such a large gap.

The AMD FirePro W2100 wins in Vulkan-based applications and scenarios where API efficiency matters more than peak compute. Its 4497 Vulkan score is 22.3% higher than Intel’s 3677 in the same test. The AMD part also benefits from dedicated memory: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part, by contrast, relies on “System Shared” memory with bandwidth described as “System Dependent,” which can introduce variability in real-world performance.

For professional workstation use, the AMD part’s physical form factor matters: it is a single-slot card with two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and no power connectors, drawing just 26 W. The Intel part is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs and a 45 W TDP that counts against the host CPU’s power budget. Users who need a discrete, low-power card with predictable memory bandwidth and modern Vulkan support should favor the AMD part. Users who need maximum OpenCL compute in an integrated solution should favor the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on Intel’s Haswell GT3e chip using a 22 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. Its architecture is Generation 7.5, part of the HD Graphics (Haswell) family. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with a GCN 1.0 architecture belonging to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. The process node difference is significant: 22 nm versus 28 nm, giving Intel a transistor-density advantage even though the AMD chip packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

The compute layouts diverge sharply. Both parts have 320 shading units, but Intel pairs them with 40 TMUs and only 4 ROPs, while AMD pairs them with 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This explains the texture rate disparity: Intel achieves 46.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 13.60 GTexel/s. Conversely, AMD’s pixel rate of 5.440 GPixel/s edges out Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s, thanks to double the ROP count. The Intel design prioritizes texture-heavy compute, while the AMD design favors fill-rate-bound rasterization.

API support shows a mixed picture. Both parts support DirectX 12 (11_1), but AMD offers OpenGL 4.6 versus Intel’s 4.3, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus Intel’s 1.0. The AMD part’s newer API versions align with its stronger Vulkan benchmark showing. Memory architecture also differs fundamentally: Intel uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while AMD has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD part’s 28.80 GB/s of fixed bandwidth contrasts with Intel’s “System Dependent” bandwidth, which can vary based on the host platform’s memory configuration.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. Clock speeds: Intel runs at 200 MHz base with a 1150 MHz boost, while AMD runs at 630 MHz base with a 680 MHz boost. The AMD part’s higher base clock is notable, but Intel’s massive boost headroom (950 MHz over base) is unique. Memory: Intel has “System Shared” size, type, and bus width, while AMD has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth: Intel is “System Dependent,” AMD is a fixed 28.80 GB/s.

Thermals and power: Intel’s TDP is 45 W, AMD’s is 26 W. The AMD part is single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W; the Intel part is an IGP with no slot width beyond the integrated package. Bus interface: Intel uses “Ring Bus,” AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: Intel is “Motherboard Dependent,” AMD has 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions: AMD is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high; Intel has no listed dimensions as an integrated part.

Process and die details also differ: Intel is 22 nm at its own foundry, AMD is 28 nm at TSMC with 950 million transistors, a 77 mm² die size, and a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². Intel has no listed transistor count or die size. Release dates: Intel launched 2013-06-02, AMD launched 2014-08-11. Both are end-of-life. AMD lists a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro Polaris); Intel lists neither. The AMD part’s memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while Intel’s memory clock is simply “System Shared.”

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 averages 4360 across all benchmark tests, while the AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295. Intel leads by 1.5%, but this margin is within the range of its nearest rivals, which include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388 (0.6% behind).

Q: How much faster is the Intel part in OpenCL?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4093 for the AMD FirePro W2100, a 23.2% advantage. This aligns with Intel’s FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS versus AMD’s 435.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W2100 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro W2100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 4497 against Intel’s 3677, an 18.2% margin. This is consistent with AMD’s newer Vulkan support (1.2.170 versus Intel’s 1.0) and its dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, while the AMD FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W. The AMD part also requires no power connectors and lists a 200 W suggested PSU, whereas the Intel part is an integrated GPU drawing power through the host CPU package.

Q: Which GPU has more ROPs and what does that mean?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has 8 ROPs compared to Intel’s 4 ROPs. This results in a higher pixel rate for AMD: 5.440 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s. However, Intel has 40 TMUs versus AMD’s 20, giving Intel a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 13.60 GTexel/s.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, a system-shared bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The AMD FirePro W2100 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 if your priority is OpenCL compute performance. The data shows a 23.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, backed by 736.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, 40 TMUs, and a 1150 MHz boost clock. This part is also the better texture-processing unit, with a 46.00 GTexel/s texture rate that is more than triple the AMD part’s 13.60 GTexel/s. It is the stronger choice for integrated solutions where the host platform’s memory bandwidth can be leveraged and where the 45 W TDP is acceptable within the CPU’s power envelope.

Choose the AMD FirePro W2100 if you need Vulkan performance, dedicated memory, or a low-power discrete card. The data shows an 18.2% win in Geekbench Vulkan, with a score of 4497 versus Intel’s 3677. The 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus provides fixed 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, avoiding the system-dependent variability of Intel’s shared memory. Its 26 W TDP, single-slot form factor, and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it the practical choice for workstation builds requiring a compact, self-contained GPU. The AMD part also offers newer API support, including OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, versus Intel’s OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0.

For overall average performance, the two are nearly tied: Intel at 4360, AMD at 4295, a 1.5% difference that falls within the margin of their nearest rivals. The Intel part edges ahead in the aggregate, but the AMD part’s per-test consistency, scoring above 4000 in both OpenCL and Vulkan, contrasts with Intel’s wide swing from 5042 in OpenCL to 3677 in Vulkan. If your workload is Vulkan-centric, the AMD part is the clear pick; if it is OpenCL-centric, the Intel part is the clear pick. For mixed or unknown workloads, the AMD FirePro W2100’s balanced profile across both APIs makes it the safer recommendation, despite the Intel part’s slight average-score lead.