AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 represent two very different eras and design philosophies in GPU development. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw benchmark performance, but the comparison is nuanced by architectural trade-offs and feature support. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and practical implications for each part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 scores 3977. That represents a 26.8% advantage for the Intel part, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload. The Intel GPU also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677, while the AMD card has no Vulkan score listed at all. This means the Iris Pro not only wins the one shared test, but it also offers an API capability the Radeon cannot match.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups reinforces the gap. The Iris Pro sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4360. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 0.6% slower) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.5% slower), but it also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388, 0.6% ahead) and the GeForce GT 645M (4411, 1.2% ahead). The Radeon HD 6850 X2, by contrast, sits at the 24th percentile with an average score of 3977. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, 0.3% slower), the GeForce 830M (3957, 0.5% slower), the Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.5% slower), and the GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.6% slower). The Intel part is not only faster in absolute terms, but it also leads its immediate competition by a wider margin than the AMD part leads its own.

The delta of 26.8% is significant enough to be considered a generational leap rather than a marginal improvement. In OpenCL compute tasks, the Iris Pro delivers roughly a quarter more performance than the Radeon. This is particularly notable because the Radeon has more than three times the shading units and eight times the ROPs, yet still trails. The data suggests that raw hardware counts do not translate into proportional performance in this workload, and the Intel architecture extracts more useful work per unit of silicon.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip, built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It is part of the Generation 7.5 architecture, specifically the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 uses the Barts chip, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, and is based on the TeraScale 2 architecture from the Northern Islands (HD 6800) generation.

The process node difference is substantial: 22 nm versus 40 nm. This gives Intel a significant density and efficiency advantage from the start. The AMD chip uses 1,700 million transistors on a 255 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 6.7M per mm². Intel does not list transistor count or die size in the data, but the smaller process node typically implies higher density and lower power consumption per unit of performance.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with a bus width and type both listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The AMD card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 134.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD memory clock is 1050 MHz, or 4.2 Gbps effective. This gives the Radeon a massive memory bandwidth advantage on paper, yet it still loses the compute benchmark, suggesting that the Intel part’s memory access patterns or cache efficiency compensate for the lack of dedicated VRAM.

Compute resources tell a contrasting story. The AMD Radeon has 960 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel Iris Pro has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. The AMD part has three times the shading units and eight times the ROPs, yet its pixel rate is 25.60 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 38.40 GTexel/s versus Intel’s 46.00 GTexel/s. Notably, the Intel part actually has a higher texture rate despite fewer TMUs, which is a strong indicator of architectural efficiency or higher clock speeds driving the TMUs. The FP32 throughput is 1.536 TFLOPS for AMD and 736.0 GFLOPS for Intel, meaning the Radeon has exactly double the raw floating-point capability, but again, this does not translate into a benchmark win.

Feature support also differs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, and has no Vulkan support. The Intel GPU is newer in API terms, particularly with Vulkan, which the AMD card cannot use at all. The Radeon does have a slightly newer OpenGL version, but that is a minor point compared to the missing Vulkan support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, which is 26.8% higher than the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2’s score of 3977.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 support Vulkan?

A: No, the AMD card has no Vulkan support listed in its API specifications. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 supports Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How much memory does the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 have?

A: The AMD card has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 134.4 GB/s.

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

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on a 22 nm process, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is built on a 40 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has 960 shading units, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 has an average score of 3977.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 22 nm for Intel versus 40 nm for AMD. The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size, while the AMD part has 1,700 million transistors on a 255 mm² die with a density of 6.7M per mm². Clock speeds differ as well: the Intel part has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz, while the AMD part has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 1050 MHz (4.2 Gbps effective).

Memory is a clear differentiator. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the AMD part has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 134.4 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 320 versus 960, TMUs are 40 versus 48, and ROPs are 4 versus 32. Pixel rates are 4.600 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 46.00 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 736.0 GFLOPS versus 1.536 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Intel part has a TDP of 45 W and is an IGP with a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors. The AMD part has a TDP of 254 W, is a dual-slot card, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 600 W. The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for AMD. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for Intel, while AMD offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.3a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.1.

API support also differs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, and no Vulkan. Release dates are different, with the Intel part launching in June 2013 and the AMD part in September 2011. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD part lists a predecessor (Evergreen) and a successor (Southern Islands), while the Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute performance, as shown by its 26.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. It also wins in API modernity, offering Vulkan 1.0 support where the AMD part has none, and a newer DirectX version (12 versus 11.2). The Intel part is dramatically more power-efficient, with a 45 W TDP versus 254 W, which also means it does not require a dedicated power supply or external power connectors. Its texture rate is also higher at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 38.40 GTexel/s, despite fewer TMUs. For users who need OpenCL compute performance, modern API support, or a low-power integrated solution, the Intel part is clearly superior.

The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 wins in raw pixel throughput, with a pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s for Intel. It also has a massive memory bandwidth advantage with 134.4 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 versus Intel’s system-shared memory. The AMD part has more shading units (960 versus 320), more ROPs (32 versus 4), and higher FP32 throughput (1.536 TFLOPS versus 736.0 GFLOPS). It also has a higher OpenGL version (4.4 versus 4.3). For workloads that are heavily pixel-bound, need large amounts of fast local memory, or rely on raw shader throughput rather than OpenCL compute patterns, the AMD part has theoretical advantages.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on the primary benchmark: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 beats the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 26.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, and it also offers Vulkan support that the AMD card completely lacks. The Intel part achieves this with a 45 W TDP, no external power connectors, and system-shared memory, while the AMD part consumes 254 W, requires a 600 W PSU and 2x 8-pin connectors, and still loses the compute test. For any user prioritizing compute performance per watt, modern API access, or integrated simplicity, the Intel part is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 retains value only in scenarios where its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory and 134.4 GB/s bandwidth matter, or where its higher pixel rate and shader count could theoretically be exploited in older, pixel-heavy workloads. But the benchmark results indicate that these hardware advantages do not translate into a win in the one test where both parts are measured. The AMD part is also older, launching in September 2011 versus June 2013, and lacks Vulkan support entirely.

Given the data, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the superior part for most use cases. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, offers broader API support, and does so with a fraction of the power draw. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is a legacy part with specific hardware advantages that do not manifest in the available compute test. Users with workloads that can exploit its memory bandwidth or pixel rate might find it useful, but the benchmark evidence points firmly in Intel’s direction.