AMD Radeon HD 8850M vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two parts: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556. The AMD part wins by 63.5%, a decisive margin that places it in a different performance tier for compute workloads. This is not a narrow victory; it is a substantial lead that reflects fundamental differences in how each GPU is designed and fed with data.

The Intel part, however, has additional recorded benchmark results that the AMD card does not have. In Geekbench Metal, the Iris Pro 6200 scores 7764, which is its strongest showing. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 6032. These results are not directly comparable to the AMD card because the AMD Radeon HD 8850M only has an OpenCL score in the database. Still, the Intel part's Metal score is higher than the AMD card's OpenCL score, which suggests that on Apple-oriented or Metal-optimized workloads, the Intel GPU can punch above its weight.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7447. Its nearest rivals tell an interesting story: the Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, a 0.1% difference; the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, a 0.3% difference; the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7472, a -0.3% difference; and the Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, a -1.4% difference. This means the 8850M is effectively neck-and-neck with a desktop GTX 1650 in raw OpenCL compute, a remarkable result for a mobile part from 2013.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, by contrast, sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6117. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6137 (-0.3%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0.7%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (1.1%). The Intel part is slightly below the HD 8690M but above several dedicated NVIDIA workstation and mobile parts, which is respectable for an integrated GPU.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only direct comparison available, and it is lopsided. The AMD card's 63.5% advantage over the Intel part in OpenCL is significant enough that any application leveraging OpenCL compute will strongly favor the discrete AMD solution. The Intel part's Vulkan score of 6032 is higher than its OpenCL score, but even that would not close the gap against the AMD card's 7447 OpenCL result.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice is clear for compute-heavy workloads: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 63.5%. If your primary concern is OpenCL performance, whether for rendering, physics simulation, or other GPU-accelerated tasks, the AMD card is the superior option. Its 40th percentile ranking and its proximity to the GeForce GTX 1650 (within 0.3%) indicate that it can handle serious compute work, despite its age.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, on the other hand, is a different kind of product. It is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency and simplicity matter more than raw throughput. Its Metal score of 7764 is noteworthy, and if you are in an ecosystem that heavily uses Metal (such as macOS), the Intel part may actually feel more capable in those specific workloads. However, its OpenCL score of 4556 is far below the AMD card, and its Vulkan score of 6032, while better, still trails the AMD card's OpenCL result.

For a builder or user picking between these two for a desktop or upgrade path, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is the stronger compute performer. For someone constrained to an integrated solution where power draw is a hard limit, the Intel Iris Pro 6200 offers a balanced feature set across multiple APIs, even if it loses the head-to-head OpenCL test. The data favors AMD for raw performance, but the Intel part is not without merit in specific API scenarios.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 7447 versus the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556, a margin of 63.5%.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon HD 8850M compare to the GeForce GTX 1650 in OpenCL?

A: The AMD card scores 7447, while the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7472. The difference is -0.3%, meaning they are effectively tied in this workload.

Q: What is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's best recorded benchmark score?

A: Its Geekbench Metal score is 7764, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 4556 and its Vulkan score of 6032.

Q: Which part has a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M has an average score of 7447, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average score of 6117.

Q: How does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 rank against the AMD Radeon HD 8690M?

A: The HD 8690M scores 6137, and the Iris Pro 6200 scores 6117, a difference of -0.3%, meaning the AMD mobile part is slightly faster on average.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 8850M have a Vulkan benchmark score?

A: No, the database only contains a Geekbench OpenCL score for the AMD card. The Intel part has Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan scores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every core specification. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M uses a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system shared memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," respectively. This is a fundamental architectural difference: the AMD card has its own dedicated memory pool, while the Intel part borrows from the system's main RAM.

Shader configuration also differs sharply. The AMD card has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the Intel part has more texture units, which explains its higher texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus the AMD card's 25.00 GTexel/s. However, the AMD card has a higher pixel rate at 10.00 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for Intel.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The AMD card runs at a 575 MHz base clock with a 625 MHz boost, while its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a 300 MHz base clock but boosts to 1100 MHz, a much higher peak but a lower floor. Memory clock is listed as "System Shared" for Intel.

The bus interface also differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, typical for integrated graphics. The Intel part is listed as an IGP with a 15 W TDP, while the AMD card's TDP is not recorded in the database. Display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent" for Intel, and null for AMD, meaning the AMD card's outputs are not specified.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, codenamed Venus, using a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses Generation 8.0 architecture, codenamed Broadwell GT3e, on a 14 nm process at Intel. Its transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The AMD card is part of the Solar System generation (HD 8800M series), released on 2013-03-31. The Intel part is from the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation, released on 2014-09-04. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD card's predecessor is listed as "London" and its successor as "Gem System," while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

API support differs as well. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL, but the AMD card supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0. This means the AMD card has more modern API support, particularly for Vulkan, which could matter for compatibility with newer applications. The Intel part's FP32 throughput is 844.8 GFLOPS, slightly higher than the AMD card's 800.0 GFLOPS, despite the Intel part having fewer shaders. This is due to the Intel part's higher boost clock.

The AMD card has no recorded FP16 support, and neither part has RT or tensor cores. The Intel part's TDP is 15 W, which is a major architectural advantage for power-constrained environments, but the AMD card's power draw is not listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon HD 8850M:

• OpenCL compute: wins the head-to-head by 63.5%, with a score of 7447 versus 4556.
• Memory bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 versus system shared memory, which is inherently slower and subject to contention.
• Pixel fill rate: 10.00 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, which benefits resolutions and rasterization-heavy tasks.
• API support: OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus OpenGL 4.4 and Vulkan 1.0, giving it better compatibility with modern titles and compute frameworks.
• Dedicated memory: 2 GB of GDDR5 avoids the performance penalty of sharing system RAM.

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200:

• Texture throughput: 52.80 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s, a 2x advantage that helps in texture-heavy workloads.
• FP32 compute: 844.8 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS, a small but real edge in raw shader math.
• Metal performance: scores 7764 in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than the AMD card's OpenCL score, indicating strong performance in Metal-optimized applications.
• Vulkan performance: scores 6032, which is better than its own OpenCL score and suggests the architecture responds well to Vulkan's lower overhead.
• Power efficiency: 15 W TDP versus an unlisted TDP for AMD; the Intel part is clearly designed for low-power mobile systems.
• Texture units: 48 TMUs versus 40, contributing to its high texture rate.

In practice, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M is the pick for standalone compute tasks, especially OpenCL-based workloads, where its dedicated memory and 63.5% lead matter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the pick for integrated, power-conscious systems where texture-heavy graphics and Metal/Vulkan APIs are the priority, and where the user accepts a lower OpenCL score. The data does not support the Intel part as a general compute winner, but it does show specific strengths in texture rate and FP32 throughput that could be leveraged in the right application.