AMD FirePro W5130M vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile graphics solutions along clear lines. The AMD FirePro W5130M and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 each claim territory in different workloads, though the overall picture is surprisingly close.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 takes the single recorded benchmark victory in this comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, Intel scores 5042 against AMD’s 4904, a delta of 2.7 percent in Intel’s favor. That single win gives Intel a 1-0 record in head-to-head testing. The margin is modest, but it establishes Intel as the stronger option for OpenCL compute tasks, at least as measured by this specific workload.

AMD’s FirePro W5130M, despite losing the head-to-head, does not trail by much. The 138-point gap between the two scores represents a narrow margin that could easily flip with different driver versions or thermal conditions. What matters for use-case planning is that Intel’s integrated solution edges out AMD’s discrete mobile workstation part in raw compute throughput.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story with a twist. AMD sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, while Intel rests at the 26th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head, AMD actually ranks higher globally, meaning the FirePro W5130M outperforms a larger share of the GPU universe than Intel’s Iris Pro does. This suggests AMD’s score distribution benefits from a higher baseline, even if its peak OpenCL result trails Intel’s.

For practical workloads, the data implies Intel wins compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, while AMD holds a slight edge in overall competitive positioning against the broader GPU market. Neither part dominates decisively, and the recorded numbers show two aging mobile graphics solutions trading blows within a narrow performance band.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD’s FirePro W5130M uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Intel’s Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e die built on Generation 7.5 architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process at Intel’s own fabs.

AMD’s chip packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor counts or die size for the Haswell GT3e in the database, so direct density comparisons are impossible. The process node difference is notable: 28 nm versus 22 nm gives Intel a manufacturing advantage in theory, though AMD compensates with a larger, more densely packed die.

Clock behavior diverges sharply. The AMD FirePro W5130M runs a base clock of 900 MHz with a boost up to 925 MHz, a narrow 25 MHz range. Intel’s Iris Pro starts at a lowly 200 MHz base but boosts aggressively to 1150 MHz, a 950 MHz jump. This reflects their different roles: AMD’s discrete part maintains a steady high clock, while Intel’s integrated graphics idles low and ramps only when needed.

Memory architecture could not be more different. AMD uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel shares system memory with the CPU, with bus width and bandwidth listed as “System Shared” and “System Dependent” respectively. This means AMD’s memory performance is fixed and predictable, while Intel’s depends entirely on the host system’s RAM configuration.

The shading and texturing resources also differ. AMD fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Intel counters with 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, but only 4 ROPs. Intel’s higher TMU count gives it a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 29.60 GTexel/s, a 55 percent advantage. But AMD’s ROP advantage is massive: 16 versus 4, yielding a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s against Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s, a 3.2x gap.

Compute throughput favors AMD in raw FP32: 947.2 GFLOPS versus Intel’s 736.0 GFLOPS. Yet Intel still wins the OpenCL benchmark, suggesting architectural efficiency or driver optimization plays a role beyond raw numbers.

API support shows generational differences. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6 (AMD) versus 4.3 (Intel). Vulkan support diverges: AMD lists 1.2.170, Intel only 1.0. This gives AMD a clear software compatibility edge for modern Vulkan titles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two parts: Geekbench OpenCL. Intel wins with a score of 5042 against AMD’s 4904, a 2.7 percent delta in Intel’s favor.

That 2.7 percent margin is small enough to be within normal run-to-run variance for many GPUs, yet the recorded data shows Intel consistently ahead in this specific test. The OpenCL workload exercises compute shaders and general-purpose GPU tasks rather than traditional rasterization, which explains why Intel’s higher texture rate and aggressive boost clock might contribute to its win despite AMD’s superior FP32 throughput.

AMD’s architectural strengths do not translate into OpenCL victory. The 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 figure exceeds Intel’s 736.0 GFLOPS by 28.7 percent, yet the benchmark result reverses that advantage. This suggests either inefficient OpenCL driver implementation on AMD’s side or that the Geekbench OpenCL workload favors Intel’s execution model for specific operations.

Looking at nearest rivals adds context. AMD’s FirePro W5130M sits within 0.5 percent of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and R7 M360, both scoring 4929 and 4931 respectively. Intel’s Iris Pro 5200 lands within 0.6 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, which scores 4335, and within 1.2 percent of the GeForce GT 645M at 4411. These rival relationships are curious: Intel’s integrated graphics trades blows with a modern RTX card in this benchmark, while AMD’s discrete part matches older mobile Radeons.

The single benchmark limits analysis, but the data clearly shows Intel ahead in OpenCL compute. No other head-to-head tests exist in the database, so conclusions about gaming or professional rendering must remain speculative.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: AMD uses 28 nm TSMC, Intel uses 22 nm Intel. Transistors: AMD counts 1,500 million, Intel does not report. Die size: AMD measures 123 mm², Intel does not report. Transistor density: AMD shows 12.2M per mm², Intel does not report.

Base clock: AMD at 900 MHz versus Intel at 200 MHz. Boost clock: AMD at 925 MHz versus Intel at 1150 MHz. Memory clock: AMD at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus Intel’s system shared memory with no dedicated clock.

Memory size: AMD has 2 GB GDDR5, Intel uses system shared memory. Bus width: AMD at 128 bit, Intel system shared. Bandwidth: AMD at 64.00 GB/s, Intel system dependent.

Shading units: 512 versus 320. TMUs: 32 versus 40. ROPs: 16 versus 4. Pixel rate: 14.80 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 29.60 GTexel/s versus 46.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 736.0 GFLOPS.

TDP: AMD does not report, Intel lists 45 W. Slot width: AMD does not report, Intel shows “IGP”. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Ring Bus. Display outputs: AMD does not report, Intel shows “Motherboard Dependent”.

OpenGL support: 4.6 versus 4.3. Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.0. Release date: AMD launched 2015-10-01, Intel launched 2013-06-02. Both are end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5042 against AMD’s 4904, a 2.7 percent margin.

Q: Does AMD’s higher FP32 throughput translate to better OpenCL performance?

A: No. AMD lists 947.2 GFLOPS versus Intel’s 736.0 GFLOPS, yet Intel still wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating the workload does not scale directly with raw FP32.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in pixel and texture processing?

A: AMD leads pixel rate at 14.80 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s. Intel leads texture rate at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: AMD uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support?

A: AMD supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while Intel only supports Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How do their global rankings compare?

A: AMD sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, while Intel sits at the 26th percentile, despite Intel winning the head-to-head OpenCL test.

The Verdict

The recorded data paints a nuanced picture for potential buyers or system builders choosing between these two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads. Its 5042 score beats AMD’s 4904 by 2.7 percent, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, suggesting respectable compute performance for an integrated part. Intel’s higher texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s and aggressive 1150 MHz boost clock also favor texture-heavy operations. The 45 W TDP, while higher than typical integrated graphics, still represents a power-efficient solution compared to discrete alternatives.

The AMD FirePro W5130M is the better choice for pixel-heavy workloads and modern API compatibility. Its 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate is 3.2 times Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s, making it superior for rasterization-heavy tasks. The 16 ROPs versus Intel’s 4 ROPs reinforce this advantage. AMD also offers newer software support with Vulkan 1.2.170 against Intel’s 1.0, and OpenGL 4.6 against 4.3. The 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 with fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable memory performance, unlike Intel’s system-dependent shared memory.

For overall competitive positioning, AMD’s 29th percentile ranking edges out Intel’s 26th, meaning AMD outperforms a larger fraction of the GPU market. The FirePro W5130M also carries the professional workstation branding, which may matter for driver certification and software compatibility in professional applications, though the database does not record specific professional benchmark results.

The 2015 release date for AMD versus 2013 for Intel means AMD offers a newer design, but both are end-of-life products. Neither supports modern ray tracing or tensor cores, as those fields are null in the database. DirectX support is identical at 12 (11_1).

Ultimately, the choice depends on workload priorities. Intel wins the single recorded compute benchmark and offers higher texture throughput. AMD wins on pixel processing, memory bandwidth consistency, API version support, and global percentile ranking. For users running OpenCL compute tasks, Intel’s Iris Pro 5200 is the data-supported pick. For users prioritizing rasterization, modern API compatibility, or dedicated memory, the FirePro W5130M is the stronger candidate. The narrow 2.7 percent benchmark gap suggests either part will deliver similar real-world performance in many scenarios, so the decision should hinge on specific application requirements rather than raw scores.