AMD FirePro W600 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they occupy completely different performance tiers and design philosophies. The benchmark data shows a clear single-winner scenario in the shared test, yet the broader benchmark suite reveals a more nuanced picture where the Intel part excels in API-specific workloads. The FirePro W600 delivers a dominant OpenCL performance lead, while the Iris Pro 6200 counters with superior results in Metal and Vulkan tests, making the choice highly dependent on the target application environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the AMD FirePro W600. The FirePro scores 6223 points, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 manages only 4556 points. This represents a 36.6% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin that indicates a significant raw compute throughput difference in this workload.

This OpenCL result aligns with the theoretical specifications of both cards. The FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Iris Pro 6200 offers 844.8 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the Intel part has a higher theoretical peak, yet it trails by over 36% in the actual OpenCL test. This discrepancy highlights that raw FLOP counts do not always translate directly to real-world benchmark performance, with driver maturity and memory subsystem efficiency playing critical roles.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 shows its strengths in other API tests. It scores 7764 in Geekbench Metal and 6032 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the FirePro W600 has no recorded scores in these tests. The Metal result is particularly noteworthy, as it represents the highest single benchmark score between both cards, exceeding the FirePro’s OpenCL result by approximately 24.8%.

When placed against their nearest rivals, both cards sit in a similar performance neighborhood. The FirePro W600’s average benchmark score of 6223 places it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210) and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270). The Iris Pro 6200’s average score of 6117 places it 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137) but 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049). This data suggests both GPUs are competitive within their respective performance brackets, despite the large gap between them in the OpenCL test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has an average benchmark score of 6223, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6117. The FirePro leads by approximately 1.7% in this aggregate metric.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, which is 36.6% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s score of 4556. This is the only shared benchmark test between the two cards.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro 6200 has recorded scores in Geekbench Metal (7764) and Geekbench Vulkan (6032), tests where the FirePro W600 has no recorded results. These represent wins for the Intel part in API-specific workloads.

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

A: The FirePro W600 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6950 and 0.9% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K620. The Iris Pro 6200 is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8690M and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A400.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth figure.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s, which is nearly double the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s 6.600 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The AMD FirePro W600 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Cape Verde chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses the Generation 8.0 architecture with the Broadwell GT3e chip, fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm process. This process advantage gives Intel a significant transistor density lead, though Intel does not disclose the transistor count or die size for this chip.

The compute configurations differ markedly. The FirePro W600 packs 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Iris Pro 6200 has 384 shading units but compensates with 48 TMUs, though it drops to just 6 ROPs. This ROP disparity explains the pixel rate difference, as the FirePro achieves 12.00 GPixel/s versus the Iris Pro’s 6.600 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells the opposite story, with the Iris Pro delivering 52.80 GTexel/s compared to the FirePro’s 24.00 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental split. The FirePro W600 uses dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent, meaning performance scales with the host system’s memory configuration. This gives the discrete card a massive advantage in memory-bound workloads, while the integrated solution benefits from flexibility but suffers from potential contention with CPU memory traffic.

In terms of feature support, both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), but their other API support diverges. The FirePro W600 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Iris Pro 6200 is limited to OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. The Intel part’s lower API versions may affect compatibility with newer software, though it compensates with Metal support, which the AMD card lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict for users prioritizing OpenCL compute workloads: the AMD FirePro W600 is the superior choice. Its 36.6% lead in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test demonstrates decisive performance advantage in this API. The FirePro also offers dedicated GDDR5 memory, which provides predictable bandwidth that integrated solutions cannot match. For professional applications that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration, the FirePro W600 is the only rational selection between these two.

However, the verdict changes for users targeting Metal or Vulkan environments. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 records scores of 7764 in Metal and 6032 in Vulkan, tests where the FirePro has no presence. This makes the Iris Pro the only viable option for applications built exclusively on these APIs. The Intel part also delivers higher FP32 compute on paper (844.8 GFLOPS vs 768.0 GFLOPS) and superior texture throughput, suggesting it may excel in specific workloads despite its overall OpenCL deficit.

The power envelope further separates these cards. The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Iris Pro 6200 sips just 15 W as an integrated part with no power connectors. For systems with limited power budgets or thermal constraints, the Iris Pro offers significant efficiency advantages that cannot be ignored.

Specification Differences

The most visible specification difference is memory. The AMD FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance is tied to the host system’s RAM configuration.

Clock speeds also differ fundamentally. The FirePro W600 has no listed base or boost clock, with memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro 6200 has a 300 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost clock, with memory clocked as System Shared.

The compute unit counts show different allocation strategies. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. This produces a pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part, but a texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s versus 52.80 GTexel/s respectively.

Physical specifications differ completely. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with no power connectors required. The Iris Pro 6200 is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed, integrated directly onto the motherboard with its display outputs described as Motherboard Dependent.

The FirePro W600 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Iris Pro’s display outputs depend on the motherboard implementation. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Iris Pro connects via Ring Bus. The FirePro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the Iris Pro has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W600 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads, as demonstrated by its 36.6% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test. It also wins in memory bandwidth scenarios, with 64.00 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth versus the Intel part’s System Dependent shared memory. The FirePro’s 16 ROPs versus the Iris Pro’s 6 ROPs gives it a clear advantage in pixel-heavy workloads, evidenced by its 12.00 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in Metal and Vulkan applications, recording scores of 7764 and 6032 respectively, where the FirePro has no benchmark presence. It also wins in texture processing, with 52.80 GTexel/s versus the FirePro’s 24.00 GTexel/s, making it better suited for texture-bound shaders. The Iris Pro’s 15 W TDP versus the FirePro’s 75 W TDP makes it the clear winner for power-constrained systems, and its integrated nature eliminates the need for a discrete card slot.

For multi-display professional setups, the FirePro W600’s 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs give it a clear advantage. For users needing the latest API support, the FirePro’s OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 outclass the Iris Pro’s OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. The choice ultimately hinges on the specific software ecosystem: OpenCL and display flexibility favor AMD, while Metal, Vulkan, and power efficiency favor Intel.