AMD Radeon R5 Graphics vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two integrated graphics solutions. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics posts a score of 5183, edging out the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 5042. That represents a 2.7% advantage for the AMD part, a margin that is real but modest. The AMD side also holds a slight edge in the aggregate: its average benchmark score across the database is 3883, which places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part averages 4360 and sits in the 26th percentile. The higher average for Intel is driven largely by its much stronger Vulkan showing.

The Vulkan test tells a different story entirely. Here the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 3677 against 2582 for the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, a decisive 42.4% lead. This is the single largest performance gap in the head-to-head data, and it flips the overall comparison. The Intel part wins one benchmark, the AMD part wins the other, and the margin of victory for Intel in Vulkan is more than fifteen times larger than AMD's margin in OpenCL.

Context from the nearest rivals helps calibrate these numbers. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's average score of 4360 sits within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) and within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388). It trails the GeForce GT 645M (4411) by 1.2% and leads the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) by 1.5%. For the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, its 3883 average is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898), 0.9% behind the Quadro K2000D (3919), and 1.2% behind the Quadro 2000D (3930), while leading the GeForce MX110 (3834) by 1.3%. These deltas show both parts clustering tightly with their immediate competitors, but the Intel part is anchored higher in the overall distribution.

The practical interpretation is straightforward. For compute workloads that map well to OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a small but consistent edge. For Vulkan-based rendering or compute tasks, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is in a different class entirely, outperforming the AMD part by a wide margin. Benchmark results indicate that API selection matters more here than any other single factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on a 22 nm process at Intel, using the Haswell GT3e chip and Generation 7.5 architecture, part of the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics uses a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with the Spectre SL chip and GCN 2.0 architecture, part of the GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) generation. The Intel part is the older design, with a release date of June 2013, while the AMD part launched in September 2014.

Shader resources differ significantly. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 carries 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The Intel part has 25% more shading units and 2.5 times the texture mapping units. This hardware disparity explains much of the Vulkan performance gap, as the Intel part can feed more parallel work through its wider texture pipeline.

Raw throughput figures reinforce this. The Intel part delivers 4.600 GPixel/s of pixel rate and 46.00 GTexel/s of texture rate, with 736.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. The AMD part manages 3.032 GPixel/s, 12.13 GTexel/s, and 388.1 GFLOPS. The Intel part is roughly 52% faster in pixel rate, 3.8 times faster in texture rate, and 90% faster in FP32. The AMD part's advantage in OpenCL, despite this hardware gap, suggests its GCN 2.0 architecture maps compute workloads more efficiently in that particular API.

The AMD chip is a full SoC, with the database recording 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 9.8M per mm². The Intel part has no transistor or die size data recorded. Power envelopes differ substantially: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is rated at 45 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics draws only 15 W. Both are integrated parts with system-shared memory, motherboard-dependent display outputs, and system-dependent bandwidth.

API support also diverges. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a more modern API stack, particularly in Vulkan version support, yet it loses decisively in the Vulkan benchmark. The Intel part's bus interface is listed as Ring Bus, while the AMD part uses IGP. The AMD part has recorded predecessor and successor entries (TeraScale 3 IGP and GCN 3.0 IGP), while the Intel part has neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 Graphics scores 5183 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 5042 by 2.7%.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 3677 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics's 2582 by 42.4%.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The Intel part's 4360 average is within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) and within 0.6% of the GeForce 930M (4388). The AMD part's 3883 average is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898) and 1.3% ahead of the GeForce MX110 (3834).

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has 256 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 45 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics has a 15 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 delivers 736.0 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics's 388.1 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. For any workload that relies on Vulkan, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the superior choice, and by a wide margin. Its 42.4% lead in the Vulkan benchmark is the largest gap recorded in this comparison, and it stems from a substantial hardware advantage: 320 shading units versus 256, 40 texture units versus 16, and 736.0 GFLOPS versus 388.1 GFLOPS. The Intel part also posts a higher average benchmark score (4360 versus 3883) and a higher percentile ranking (26th versus 23rd).

For workloads that run through OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics takes the win, albeit by a narrow 2.7% margin. That result is notable because it comes despite the AMD part having fewer shading units, fewer texture units, and less than half the FP32 throughput. The GCN 2.0 architecture appears to extract more efficiency from its available resources in OpenCL, but the advantage is small and confined to that API.

Power consumption is another deciding factor. The AMD part operates at a 15 W TDP, one-third of the Intel part's 45 W. For systems where thermal and power budgets are tight, the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics offers competitive OpenCL performance at a fraction of the power draw. The Intel part's higher TDP buys substantially better Vulkan performance and a higher overall benchmark average, but at a real cost in efficiency.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither represents a forward-looking purchase. Within the recorded data, the choice hinges on API priority. Vulkan users should pick the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 without hesitation. OpenCL users who prioritize power efficiency should pick the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics. Users who need balanced performance across both APIs will find the Intel part's average score 12.3% higher, which is a meaningful aggregate advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics |

|---|---|---|

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Chip | Haswell GT3e | Spectre SL |

| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | GCN 2.0 |

| Generation | HD Graphics (Haswell) | GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 2,410 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 245 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 9.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 200 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | Not recorded |

| Shading Units | 320 | 256 |

| TMUs | 40 | 16 |

| ROPs | 4 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.600 GPixel/s | 3.032 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.00 GTexel/s | 12.13 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 736.0 GFLOPS | 388.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | IGP |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2014-09-16 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | TeraScale 3 IGP |

| Successor | Not recorded | GCN 3.0 IGP |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5042 | 5183 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 3677 | 2582 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4360 | 3883 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 26 | 23 |

The two parts share several characteristics: both are integrated graphics with system-shared memory, system-dependent bandwidth, motherboard-dependent display outputs, and no dedicated power connectors or suggested PSU. Both have 4 ROPs. Both are end-of-life. The differences above are the complete set of recorded divergences between them.