AMD Radeon 760M vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and AMD Radeon 760M represent two distinct eras of integrated graphics, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive generational shift in compute capability, with the AMD part dominating the shared benchmark suite, though the comparison is limited to only two overlapping tests. The Intel GPU, built on Broadwell GT3e silicon, is an end-of-life product from 2014, while the AMD Radeon 760M is an active Phoenix-based IGP released in early 2024.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison consists of exactly two benchmark tests, and the AMD Radeon 760M wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part scores 20,255 against Intel’s 4,556, a delta of -77.5% from Intel’s perspective. That means the Radeon 760M delivers approximately 4.4 times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The margin is even starker in Geekbench Vulkan, where AMD scores 30,336 versus Intel’s 6,032, a delta of -80.1%. Here the AMD GPU is roughly five times faster, demonstrating that the gap widens when moving to a modern low-level graphics API.

These results are not marginal improvements; they are class-level separations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s best score in either test is 6,032 in Vulkan, which is still less than a third of AMD’s weakest showing in the paired suite (20,255 in OpenCL). When placed against the broader benchmark database, the Intel part’s average benchmark score is 6,117, while the AMD part averages 6,019. This near-identical average is misleading because the averages are computed over different test sets — Intel has three Geekbench entries, while AMD has ten entries spanning 3DMark, Passmark, and Geekbench. The head-to-head data, which uses only common tests, is the more reliable indicator of relative performance.

The per-frame-rate implications are substantial. AMD’s texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s is roughly 57% higher than Intel’s 52.80 GTexel/s, and the pixel rate difference is even more pronounced: 41.58 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, a six-fold advantage. These fillrate metrics align with the benchmark deltas, suggesting the AMD part can sustain higher resolutions and more complex shading workloads without bottlenecking. The FP32 throughput tells the same story — AMD lists 5.323 TFLOPS against Intel’s 844.8 GFLOPS, a 6.3x difference. In practical terms, any compute-heavy or graphics-intensive task that can utilize these resources will favor the Radeon 760M by a wide margin.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for nearly every use case: the AMD Radeon 760M. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, offers dramatically higher fillrates and FP32 throughput, and supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, by contrast, is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0, which will exclude it from many contemporary titles and applications that require newer API features.

There is no benchmark category in the shared suite where Intel emerges ahead — it records zero wins in the head-to-head data. The only context where the Intel part could be considered is legacy software compatibility, given its 2014 release window, but even there, the data provides no evidence of superiority. The AMD Radeon 760M is also the more future-proof option: it is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC (versus Intel’s 14 nm node), has 8 ray tracing cores, and supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The Intel part has no ray tracing cores and no listed FP16 capability.

For users who need integrated graphics for light productivity, media playback, or older games, the Intel part may suffice, but the benchmark results indicate it will struggle with anything GPU-intensive. For anyone considering modern gaming, compute workloads, or API-feature-dependent applications, the AMD Radeon 760M is the only rational choice based on the data available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6,117, while the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6,019. However, these averages are calculated over different test sets — Intel has three Geekbench entries, AMD has ten entries — so the head-to-head results are more representative of direct performance.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 760M in Vulkan?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon 760M scores 30,336 against Intel’s 6,032, representing an 80.1% delta in AMD’s favor. That is roughly five times higher performance.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the AMD Radeon 760M wins both. The Intel part records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm process, while the AMD Radeon 760M uses TSMC’s 4 nm node. This is a significant generational difference in manufacturing technology.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M has 8 ray tracing cores. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What are the API differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon 760M has 512 shading units versus Intel’s 384, a 33% increase in shader count, but Intel has more texture mapping units (48 versus 32). AMD compensates with more render output units — 16 ROPS against Intel’s 6 — which explains its much higher pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors AMD at 83.17 GTexel/s versus 52.80 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds show a substantial divergence. The Intel part runs at a base of 300 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz, while the AMD part operates at 800 MHz base and boosts to 2599 MHz. The FP32 compute output is 5.323 TFLOPS for AMD versus 844.8 GFLOPS for Intel. AMD also lists FP16 performance at 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1), a feature Intel does not specify. The AMD chip contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, with a transistor density of 142.6M per mm²; Intel’s transistor count and die size are not listed.

The bus interface differs as well — AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while Intel uses a Ring Bus. Both are IGP-class parts with system-shared memory and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The TDP is identical at 15 W, making the AMD part far more efficient given its performance advantage. The AMD part has no power connectors, consistent with its IGP design.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. Intel’s Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is based on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Generation 8.0 architecture, and belongs to the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation. AMD’s Radeon 760M is built on the Phoenix chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation. Intel’s GPU is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, while AMD uses TSMC’s 4 nm node — a three-generation process advantage.

The memory subsystems are both system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent” for both. The shading architecture differs significantly: AMD’s RDNA 3.0 implements 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPS, plus 8 dedicated ray tracing cores. Intel’s Generation 8.0 design uses 384 shaders, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPS, with no ray tracing support. AMD also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a capability absent from Intel’s specification sheet.

The API support reflects the architectural evolution. AMD lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable-rate shading, while Intel is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support jumps from 1.0 on Intel to 1.4 on AMD, and OpenGL from 4.4 to 4.6. The AMD part’s production status is active, with a predecessor listed as Navi II IGP, while the Intel part is end-of-life. The release dates are September 2014 for Intel and January 2024 for AMD, a span of roughly nine and a half years.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon 760M wins every measurable category. In the shared head-to-head suite, it dominates both Geekbench OpenCL (20,255 versus 4,556) and Geekbench Vulkan (30,336 versus 6,032). Its fillrate advantages — 41.58 GPixel/s pixel rate and 83.17 GTexel/s texture rate — position it for higher-resolution rendering and texture-heavy scenes. The FP32 throughput of 5.323 TFLOPS enables compute workloads that the Intel part’s 844.8 GFLOPS cannot handle effectively. The 8 ray tracing cores open the door to hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which the Intel GPU cannot perform at all.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has no benchmark wins and no specification advantage that translates to real-world performance gains. Its higher TMU count (48 versus 32) does not result in a higher texture rate, and its lower ROPS (6 versus 16) cripples pixel output. The only scenario where Intel could be preferred is in a system where the older API set (DirectX 11_1, OpenGL 4.4, Vulkan 1.0) is a required compatibility constraint, but no data in the fact pack suggests that scenario is common. For any modern workload — gaming, compute, or API-feature-dependent applications — the AMD Radeon 760M is the only viable choice. The data is unambiguous: AMD wins 2-0 in head-to-head tests, with deltas of 77.5% and 80.1%.