AMD FirePro W4100 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and AMD FirePro W4100 represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics processing, and the benchmark data reveals a clear, though nuanced, victor. The AMD FirePro W4100 wins both shared benchmark tests, but the margins and the underlying architectural context tell a more interesting story than a simple binary outcome.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes only two shared tests, and the AMD FirePro W4100 wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5478 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s 4556, a delta of -16.8% from the Intel’s perspective. That is a substantial lead, suggesting the FirePro’s dedicated memory and compute-oriented architecture provide a significant advantage in general-purpose GPU workloads. The margin is not close; it points to a clear performance tier gap in this specific API.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD FirePro W4100 again comes out ahead, scoring 6496 versus the Intel Iris Pro’s 6032, with a delta of -7.1%. The Intel part closes the gap considerably in Vulkan compared to OpenCL, but it still loses. The narrowing margin is curious. It implies that the Intel Iris Pro’s architecture responds better to the lower-overhead Vulkan API, or that the shared-memory design is less of a bottleneck in this test. The data does not explain why, but the shift from a near-17% deficit to a 7% deficit is a notable performance characteristic.

The Intel Iris Pro’s best showing is its Geekbench Metal score of 7764, a test the AMD FirePro W4100 does not participate in. This is the highest single score either product achieves in any benchmark. The lack of a Metal result for the FirePro is itself informative; it suggests the AMD card was not designed with Apple’s API as a priority, while the Intel integrated solution clearly benefits from it. The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture: the Intel Iris Pro averages 6117 across all its tests, while the AMD FirePro averages 5987. The Intel part’s average is higher only because of that strong Metal result. In the two tests where they directly compete, the AMD card is faster.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the shared OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5478, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s 4556. This represents a 16.8% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 have any benchmark where it clearly outperforms the AMD FirePro W4100?

A: Yes. The Intel Iris Pro achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 7764. The AMD FirePro W4100 has no Metal benchmark score listed, so this is an uncontested win for Intel.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall average performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a higher average benchmark score of 6117, compared to the AMD FirePro W4100’s 5987. However, this average includes the Intel part’s dominant Metal score, while the AMD part is not tested in Metal.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU relative to all GPUs?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD FirePro W4100 is just below it in the 34th percentile. This indicates both are near the lower-middle range of overall performance.

Q: In the Vulkan test, how close is the performance between the two?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel Iris Pro scores 6032. The AMD card leads by 7.1%, a much smaller margin than the 16.8% lead it holds in OpenCL.

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw FP32 compute rating?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a higher FP32 rating of 844.8 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD FirePro W4100’s 645.1 GFLOPS. Despite this theoretical advantage, the AMD card still wins the compute-based OpenCL benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different foundations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is an integrated processor, using the Broadwell GT3e chip and built on Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture, also known as HD Graphics (Broadwell). It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The AMD FirePro W4100 is a discrete graphics card, based on the Cape Verde chip and using the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The node difference is significant: Intel’s 14 nm process is much denser than AMD’s 28 nm, yet the AMD chip has more raw transistor count.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The Intel Iris Pro uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent" and its memory bus is also system shared. The AMD FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is likely the primary reason the AMD card wins the OpenCL test, as it does not compete with the CPU for memory access. The Intel part’s memory clock is also listed as System Shared, whereas the AMD card’s memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed.

The compute units differ in their composition. The Intel Iris Pro has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The AMD FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD card has more shading units and more than double the ROP count, which explains its higher pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s versus the Intel’s 6.600 GPixel/s. However, the Intel part has a higher texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus the AMD’s 20.16 GTexel/s, reflecting its higher TMU count. The Intel part also has a higher FP32 rating at 844.8 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS.

API support also differs. The Intel Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) as well, but offers OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, both of which are newer versions than what Intel offers. The AMD card also has a specific display output configuration of 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Intel part’s outputs are listed as Motherboard Dependent. The bus interface differs too: the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward verdict for most compute workloads: the AMD FirePro W4100 is the superior performer in the tests where both are measured. Its wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, with margins of 16.8% and 7.1% respectively, are decisive. The FirePro’s dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher ROP count likely drive these wins, making it the better choice for any application that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute. Its percentile rank of 34 is nearly identical to the Intel’s 35, but the head-to-head results place the AMD card ahead.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, however, is not without its own arena. Its dominant Geekbench Metal score of 7764 is a massive outlier that drives its average benchmark score above the AMD card’s. For any workflow that is Metal-centric, the Intel part is the clear winner, as the AMD card has no competing Metal score. The Intel part also has a higher FP32 rating and texture rate, suggesting it may excel in specific tasks that favor those characteristics, despite losing the broader compute tests. Its 15 W TDP versus the AMD’s 50 W also makes it the more power-efficient option, though that is not a benchmark score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is a major difference: Intel uses 14 nm, while AMD uses 28 nm. The AMD FirePro W4100 has a specific transistor count of 1,500 million and a die size of 123 mm², while the Intel part does not list these figures. The AMD card’s transistor density is 12.2M / mm². Clock speeds also differ: the Intel Iris Pro has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the AMD FirePro lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The memory configuration is completely different: the Intel part uses System Shared memory, while the AMD card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute unit counts vary: Intel has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs, while AMD has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This leads to different pixel and texture rates: Intel’s pixel rate is 6.600 GPixel/s and texture rate is 52.80 GTexel/s, while AMD’s are 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 844.8 GFLOPS for Intel and 645.1 GFLOPS for AMD. The TDP is 15 W for Intel and 50 W for AMD. The slot width is IGP for Intel and Single-slot for AMD. The power connectors are absent for both, but the AMD card has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel and PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs are Motherboard Dependent for Intel and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for AMD. API support differs in OpenGL (4.4 vs 4.6) and Vulkan (1.0 vs 1.2.170). The AMD card has dimensions of 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, while the Intel part has no listed dimensions. The AMD card’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris, while the Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor. The release dates are close: Intel on 2014-09-04 and AMD on 2014-08-12.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in every scenario where OpenCL or Vulkan is the primary API. Its 16.8% lead in OpenCL makes it the go-to choice for general-purpose compute tasks, such as rendering, physics simulation, or any workload that leverages the GPU for non-graphics processing. Its 7.1% lead in Vulkan also makes it the better option for modern game engines or applications that use Vulkan’s low-overhead features. The AMD card’s dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a clear advantage for texture-heavy workloads and any task that requires fast, local memory access without competing with the CPU.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in the Metal ecosystem. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 is the single highest benchmark score between the two, and it is uncontested. For users on Apple platforms that rely on Metal, the Intel part is the only viable option based on this data. The Intel part also has theoretical advantages in FP32 compute (844.8 GFLOPS vs 645.1 GFLOPS) and texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s vs 20.16 GTexel/s), which could translate to wins in specific, narrowly-defined tasks that are not captured by the shared benchmarks. Its lower 15 W TDP and IGP form factor also make it the only option for ultra-portable or power-constrained systems where a discrete card is not feasible. The data does not support the Intel part winning any shared benchmark, but its unique strengths in Metal and its theoretical compute advantages carve out a distinct, if narrower, set of use cases.