AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile graphics parts. Each claims one benchmark victory, and the margins are not subtle.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 posts a score of 5042 against the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4650. That is a 7.8% advantage for Intel. The OpenCL result favors the Iris Pro's architecture, which leverages its larger texture unit count and higher boost clock to push through compute workloads. The AMD part trails by nearly 400 points, a meaningful gap in raw throughput terms.

The Vulkan result tells a completely different story. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 scores 4925, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 manages only 3677. That is a 33.9% lead for AMD, an enormous margin in API-specific performance. The R5 M255's Vulkan driver support at version 1.2.170 versus Intel's 1.0 likely explains much of this gap. The newer API implementation gives AMD a decisive edge in modern graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan's lower overhead and explicit control.

Looking at average benchmark scores across both tests, the AMD part averages 4788, while Intel averages 4360. The R5 M255 holds an overall aggregate advantage of roughly 9.8% despite losing the OpenCL test. The percentile rankings reflect this: AMD sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, Intel at the 26th. Both are entry-level parts by modern standards, but the AMD card is slightly more consistent across the two APIs tested.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB's average score of 4791, though that comparison is purely a database artifact of similar aggregate numbers. More relevant is its 0.8% lead over the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752) and its 1.2% deficit to the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844). For Intel, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388), and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411). These deltas show both parts clustered tightly with other low-end mobile GPUs from their respective eras.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD uses a discrete GPU approach with the Topaz chip, built on GCN 3.0 architecture. Intel integrates its graphics directly into the Haswell processor package as Generation 7.5 silicon.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. AMD fabricates on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while Intel uses its own 22 nm node. Intel's process is denser, though the datasheet does not provide transistor counts or die sizes for the Intel part. AMD's Topaz packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. Intel's Haswell GT3e die metrics are not recorded in the database.

Core configurations reveal different priorities. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320 shading units but 40 texture mapping units and only 4 ROPs. The texture rate numbers reflect this: Intel achieves 46.00 GTexel/s versus AMD's 22.56 GTexel/s. However, AMD's pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s nearly doubles Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s because of the doubled ROP count.

Clock behavior is distinct. AMD runs at a 925 MHz base with a 940 MHz boost, a modest 15 MHz uplift. Intel sits at a 200 MHz base but boosts aggressively to 1150 MHz, a 950 MHz range. The Intel part's dynamic boosting allows it to scale up under load while idling at very low clocks. Despite the clock differences, FP32 compute is close: AMD delivers 721.9 GFLOPS, Intel delivers 736.0 GFLOPS. Intel's higher shader efficiency per clock offsets its fewer shading units. AMD also lists FP16 at 721.9 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while Intel does not report FP16 capabilities.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different. AMD uses 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, producing 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). Intel shares system memory, with bus width and bandwidth marked as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. The dedicated memory gives AMD predictable bandwidth, while Intel's performance depends entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

The TDP figures differ as well. Intel lists 45 W for the integrated part, though this is the processor package power, not a discrete GPU figure. AMD does not report a TDP for the R5 M255. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while Intel connects via Ring Bus, reflecting its integrated nature.

API support shows a clear generational gap. AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Intel supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The Vulkan version difference alone accounts for the massive Vulkan benchmark gap, as newer API revisions bring better driver optimization and feature coverage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the OpenCL test with a score of 5042, beating the AMD Radeon R5 M255's 4650. The margin is 7.8% in Intel's favor.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins with 4925 points, defeating Intel's 3677. AMD leads by 33.9% in Vulkan performance.

Q: What is the aggregate benchmark score difference?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 averages 4788 across both benchmarks, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 averages 4360. That is roughly a 9.8% overall advantage for AMD.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M255 has 384 shading units, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 320. Despite fewer units, Intel achieves slightly higher FP32 compute of 736.0 GFLOPS versus AMD's 721.9 GFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: AMD uses 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.00 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 was released on June 2, 2013. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 followed on October 11, 2014, making it roughly 16 months newer.

The Verdict

The data supports a contextual choice rather than a universal winner. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 is the better part for Vulkan-centric workloads, where its 33.9% lead over Intel's Iris Pro represents a decisive advantage. Its 4925 Vulkan score is also higher than its own OpenCL result, suggesting the architecture responds well to modern APIs. The Intel part, by contrast, shows a preference for OpenCL workloads, where it leads by 7.8%.

Aggregate performance favors AMD. The R5 M255's 4788 average beats Intel's 4360 by roughly 9.8%, and its 28th percentile ranking sits above Intel's 26th. However, both parts are clustered near the bottom of the GPU performance hierarchy overall, surrounded by other low-end mobile parts from the same era.

Users who need OpenCL acceleration in legacy applications should consider the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. Conversely, users running Vulkan titles or applications that leverage newer API features will see substantially better results on the AMD Radeon R5 M255. The Intel part's Vulkan 1.0 support, combined with its 36% lower Vulkan score, makes it the weaker choice in that specific scenario.

Specification Differences

The specification table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |

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

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Chip | Topaz | Haswell GT3e |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Generation 7.5 |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | HD Graphics (Haswell) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | Not reported |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | Not reported |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | Not reported |

| Base Clock | 925 MHz | 200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 940 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.1 GB/s (32.00 GB/s) | System Dependent (system shared) |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.520 GPixel/s | 4.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.56 GTexel/s | 46.00 GTexel/s |

| FP16 | 721.9 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not reported |

| TDP | Not reported | 45 W |

| Slot Width | Not reported | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Not reported | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2014-10-11 | 2013-06-02 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Not reported |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Not reported |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M255 wins in modern API compatibility. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support and 33.9% Vulkan benchmark advantage make it the clear choice for Vulkan-based applications. It also holds the aggregate performance lead with a 4788 average score, aided by its DirectX 12 (12_0) support versus Intel's DirectX 12 (11_1). Its dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 32.1 GB/s bandwidth ensures consistent memory performance regardless of host system configuration. The pixel rate of 7.520 GPixel/s, double Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s, gives it an advantage in fill-rate heavy workloads.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in OpenCL compute workloads, posting 5042 points against AMD's 4650. Its higher texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, nearly double AMD's 22.56 GTexel/s, makes it stronger in texel-heavy operations. The 40 texture mapping units versus AMD's 24 provide hardware-level advantages in filtered texture access. Its 22 nm process node is more advanced than AMD's 28 nm, and its 1150 MHz boost clock is 210 MHz higher than AMD's 940 MHz boost. The 45 W TDP figure, while tied to the host processor package, suggests the integrated design carries a defined power envelope.

Both parts are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon R5 M255 occupies the 28th performance percentile, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 sits at the 26th. Their nearest rivals are all similarly aged low-end mobile GPUs, indicating neither part offers modern performance levels. The choice ultimately depends on the API ecosystem of the target applications, with AMD serving Vulkan users and Intel serving OpenCL users.