AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

The Radeon R5 M230 and Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are both end-of-life integrated-class solutions, but the benchmark data shows they are not evenly matched. The Intel part holds a clear lead in the single available compute test, though the AMD part counters with a slightly better overall GPU percentile ranking. This analysis breaks down the numbers from the FACT PACK to determine where each chip actually stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577. That is a 9.2% advantage for Intel, a meaningful gap in a synthetic compute workload that often reflects real-world GPGPU performance. The data shows no benchmark where the AMD part wins outright; the head-to-head tally is 0 wins for the R5 M230 and 1 win for the Iris Pro.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the separation. The R5 M230’s 4577 score places it just 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628) by 1.1%. Those are tight margins, meaning the R5 M230 sits in a crowded performance band where a few points separate it from much more expensive discrete parts.

The Iris Pro 5200’s 5042 OpenCL score puts it in a different neighborhood. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388), which it beats by 0.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411), which it leads by 1.2%. It also outpaces the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) by 1.5%. The only rival that beats it is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) — wait, that score is lower, so the Iris Pro actually leads that part by 0.6%. That is a strange result for a modern flagship card, but the data is the data.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The Iris Pro 5200 averages 4360 across its two tests (OpenCL 5042 and Vulkan 3677), while the R5 M230 averages 4577 from its single OpenCL result. The Vulkan score drags Intel’s average down, but the OpenCL win is the more relevant metric for compute-heavy tasks. The percentile rankings are close: the R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro is at the 26th. That suggests that despite the 9.2% OpenCL gap, the overall field position is nearly identical.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the “Jet” chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² area, for a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip with Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel. No transistor count or die size is listed for the Intel part, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the data.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The R5 M230 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as “System Dependent” — meaning it relies on the host system’s RAM and memory controller. The R5 M230’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the Intel part’s base clock is 200 MHz with a boost up to 1150 MHz. The AMD part’s clocks are not listed for base or boost, only memory.

Compute resources are where the architectures diverge sharply. Both parts have 320 shading units, but the Intel part has 40 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus the AMD part’s 20, and the AMD part has 8 raster output units (ROPs) versus Intel’s 4. This explains the texture rate disparity: the Iris Pro pushes 46.00 GTexel/s, while the R5 M230 manages only 12.20 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are closer — 4.880 GPixel/s for AMD and 4.600 GPixel/s for Intel — because the R5 M230’s higher ROP count compensates for its lower TMU count.

Peak FP32 throughput follows the TMU advantage. The Iris Pro 5200 delivers 736.0 GFLOPS, nearly double the R5 M230’s 390.4 GFLOPS. That is the single biggest architectural gap between the two, and it directly explains the OpenCL benchmark result. The Intel part is doing roughly twice the raw floating-point work per cycle.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan, but the AMD part supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part also has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus connection, reflecting its integration into the CPU. The Intel part has a listed TDP of 45 W, while the AMD part’s TDP is not specified. Both are IGP slot width and end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute workloads. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 beats the AMD Radeon R5 M230 by 9.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, and its 46.00 GTexel/s texture rate is nearly four times the AMD part’s 12.20 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS confirms that Intel’s architecture is substantially more capable for floating-point math. Anyone running OpenCL-accelerated tasks — video encoding, image filters, or scientific compute — should favor the Iris Pro based on this data.

The AMD part is not without merits, but they are narrower. Its 2 GB of dedicated memory is a concrete advantage over system shared memory, which can be a bottleneck depending on the host system. The R5 M230 also has more ROPs (8 versus 4), giving it a slightly higher pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s. The AMD part supports newer API versions (OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0), which could matter for software that relies on newer feature sets.

The percentile rankings are effectively a tie — 27th for AMD and 26th for Intel — so neither part escapes the bottom third of the GPU landscape. The average benchmark scores favor AMD (4577 versus 4360), but that is skewed by Intel’s weak Vulkan result of 3677. The R5 M230 has no Vulkan score listed, so its average is based solely on its OpenCL number.

For a buyer choosing between these two integrated solutions, the Intel part is the safer pick for raw compute performance. The AMD part only makes sense if dedicated memory is a hard requirement or if the system already has a strong CPU with fast shared memory to offset the Intel part’s dependency on system RAM.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 9.2% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M230’s 4577.

Q: How much dedicated memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses system shared memory with no dedicated allocation.

Q: What is the texture fill rate difference?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 delivers 46.00 GTexel/s, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 delivers 12.20 GTexel/s. Intel’s part is nearly four times faster in this metric.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 has a pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s, which is slightly higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200’s 4.600 GPixel/s.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 sits at the 26th percentile. They are nearly identical in overall field position.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 736.0 GFLOPS is nearly double the AMD part’s 390.4 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s crushes the R5 M230’s 12.20 GTexel/s. The 9.2% OpenCL benchmark lead confirms that this advantage translates to real workloads. The Intel part also has a listed TDP of 45 W, giving it a defined power envelope, while the AMD part’s TDP is unspecified. For any application that stresses shader math or texture sampling, the Iris Pro is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins in memory independence and API currency. Its 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory at 16.00 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed resource that does not compete with the CPU for system RAM, unlike the Intel part’s system shared memory. The R5 M230 also has a higher pixel rate of 4.880 GPixel/s thanks to its 8 ROPs, which can benefit fill-rate-bound scenarios at lower resolutions. Its support for OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170 means it can run newer graphics API features that the Intel part’s OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0 cannot. The AMD part also edges out the Intel part in average benchmark score (4577 versus 4360), though this is partly due to the Intel part’s weaker Vulkan result.

Use-case split: the Iris Pro is for compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL acceleration, texture-heavy rendering, or any workload that benefits from high FP32 throughput. The R5 M230 is for systems where dedicated VRAM is non-negotiable, where the latest API versions are required, or where pixel fill rate matters more than raw compute. Neither part is suitable for modern gaming at high settings — both sit below the 30th percentile of all GPUs — but for light or legacy workloads, the choice depends entirely on whether you prioritize compute power (Intel) or memory and API flexibility (AMD).