AMD Radeon R5 M320 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

AMD Radeon R5 M320 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are both end-of-life integrated-class mobile graphics solutions, but they come from different design philosophies. The AMD part is a discrete-style IGP using the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, while the Intel solution is a Haswell GT3e integrated GPU on a 22 nm process. Benchmark data shows the AMD R5 M320 holds a narrow overall advantage, winning both head-to-head tests, but the margin varies dramatically depending on the workload. This analysis breaks down the architectural differences, performance deltas, and practical use cases based strictly on the provided specifications and benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins with a score of 5051, edging out the Intel Iris Pro 5200's 5042 by a marginal 0.2% difference. This is effectively a statistical tie in raw compute performance.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD R5 M320 scores 4262 against the Intel's 3677, a substantial 15.9% advantage. This is the only benchmark with a significant delta.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD R5 M320 has an average benchmark score of 4657, while the Intel Iris Pro 5200 averages 4360. The AMD part is roughly 6.8% higher on average, based on the two tests in the data.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD R5 M320 achieves a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s, notably higher than the Intel Iris Pro 5200's 4.600 GPixel/s. This suggests better performance on fill-rate-bound tasks.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: No. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), but the AMD R5 M320 supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Intel Iris Pro 5200 is limited to OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD R5 M320, built on 28 nm, has 690 million transistors in a 56 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro 5200's transistor count and die size are not listed in the data, so a direct comparison cannot be made.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is clear: the AMD R5 M320 uses GCN 1.0, a mature graphics core design from the "Gem System (R5 M300)" generation, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die. The Intel Iris Pro 5200, conversely, uses the Generation 7.5 architecture (Haswell GT3e) on Intel's 22 nm process, with the data not listing its transistor count or die size.

Shader core counts are identical at 320 shading units each, but the distribution of other fixed-function hardware differs significantly. The AMD part has 20 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 8 raster output units (ROPs), while the Intel part has double the TMUs at 40 but half the ROPs at 4. This creates distinct throughput characteristics: the Intel GPU achieves a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus the AMD's 17.10 GTexel/s, while the AMD wins pixel throughput at 6.840 GPixel/s against Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s. The FP32 compute rating also favors Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS versus AMD's 547.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The AMD R5 M320 has a dedicated 4 GB DDR3 pool on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, so its effective memory performance is wholly reliant on the host platform's RAM configuration. Clock behavior differs too: the AMD chip runs at a fixed 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the Intel has a much lower 200 MHz base but boosts to 1150 MHz, implying more aggressive power management.

Process technology differences are notable: 28 nm (TSMC) for AMD versus 22 nm (Intel) for the Iris Pro. The AMD part is a PCIe 3.0 x8 device, whereas the Intel GPU connects via a Ring Bus, reflecting its integration into the CPU. Display outputs are also dependent on the host device: the AMD is "Portable Device Dependent," and the Intel is "Motherboard Dependent." The Intel part has a listed TDP of 45 W, while the AMD's TDP is not provided.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M320 wins outright in both head-to-head benchmark tests, but the nature of those wins matters for real-world use. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 5051 score is only 0.2% higher than Intel's 5042, meaning compute-heavy workloads that scale well with OpenCL will see essentially no practical difference between the two. The AMD's advantage in this test likely stems from its dedicated memory bandwidth (16.00 GB/s) and higher pixel rate, though the raw FP32 output is lower than Intel's.

The AMD's decisive victory comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 4262 versus 3677, a 15.9% lead. This suggests the AMD architecture's Vulkan driver implementation (version 1.2.170) is significantly more mature or efficient than Intel's (version 1.0). For any application using the Vulkan API, the AMD R5 M320 should be the clear choice based on these numbers. However, the Intel part's higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS) could give it an edge in certain texture-heavy or compute-heavy scenarios that do not rely on pixel fill or Vulkan, even though the aggregate benchmark scores do not reflect a win.

The Intel Iris Pro 5200's specification advantages in texture fill and raw compute are not enough to overcome its losses in the benchmarks. Its lower pixel rate (4.600 GPixel/s) and shared memory bandwidth likely hamper its performance in memory-intensive tasks. Therefore, the AMD wins in all measured head-to-head scenarios, but the Intel's theoretical strengths indicate it might be competitive in very specific workloads like high-texture filtering or FP32 math that are not directly measured by the provided tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M320 | Intel Iris Pro 5200 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 690 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | 200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 855 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| TMUs | 20 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.840 GPixel/s | 4.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.10 GTexel/s | 46.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 547.2 GFLOPS | 736.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 45 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-06-02 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs trade nearly identical scores in Geekbench OpenCL, with the AMD R5 M320 at 5051 and the Intel Iris Pro 5200 at 5042. The deltaPct of 0.2% places this effectively within run-to-run variance, indicating that for pure OpenCL compute, these are equivalent performers. This is despite the AMD's lower theoretical FP32 rating (547.2 GFLOPS) and texture rate (17.10 GTexel/s) compared to Intel's 736.0 GFLOPS and 46.00 GTexel/s. The AMD's dedicated 4 GB memory and fixed 16.00 GB/s bandwidth appear to compensate for its lower compute throughput, allowing it to match the Intel part that must rely on system memory.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is where the AMD R5 M320 distinguishes itself. Its score of 4262 beats the Intel's 3677 by a full 15.9% (deltaPct). This is a significant margin that points to a fundamental software advantage: the AMD GPU supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel only supports Vulkan 1.0. The newer API version likely enables better driver optimizations and feature utilization. For any gaming or compute workload that leverages Vulkan, the AMD R5 M320 is the clear winner, offering performance roughly equivalent to a modern mid-range part given its nearest rival scores. The AMD's nearestRivals list includes the NVIDIA Quadro P400 at 4684 (0.6% higher) and the GTX 970M at 4628 (0.6% lower), placing it in that performance tier. The Intel's nearest rivals include the GeForce 930M at 4388 (0.6% higher) and the GT 645M at 4411 (1.2% higher), showing it sits in a lower performance bracket overall.

Aggregating the two tests, the AMD R5 M320 achieves an average benchmark score of 4657, while the Intel averages 4360. The AMD's 6.8% higher average is driven entirely by the Vulkan win, as the OpenCL scores are nearly identical. The percentile rankings reflect this: the AMD sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel is at the 26th percentile, a negligible difference in overall standing.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, overall winner: the AMD Radeon R5 M320. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (4657 vs 4360), and offers superior pixel fill rate, dedicated memory, and newer API support. The decision between them should hinge on the primary workload. If Vulkan-based applications are on the table, the AMD's 15.9% lead is decisive and makes the choice obvious. For OpenCL compute, the 0.2% difference means either GPU will perform identically, so the decision should rest on other factors like platform compatibility.

The Intel Iris Pro 5200 is not without its own merits. Its higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) and FP32 compute (736.0 GFLOPS) suggest it could theoretically outperform the AMD in specific shader-heavy or texture-heavy tasks that are not captured by the provided benchmarks. Its 45 W TDP is explicitly listed, which might be a consideration for power-constrained designs, although the AMD's TDP is unlisted so no comparison is possible. However, the Intel part's lack of a Vulkan win and its lower pixel rate make it the weaker choice in the measured metrics.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life parts, the AMD R5 M320 is the safer bet for general performance, especially in any Vulkan-capable software. The Intel part remains a viable alternative only if the host system's memory bandwidth is exceptionally high (making its "System Dependent" bandwidth a non-issue) or if the specific application is known to favor its texture throughput. In all benchmarked scenarios, the AMD wins; the only question is whether the 0.2% OpenCL margin or the 15.9% Vulkan margin matters more. The verdict from the data is straightforward: pick the AMD Radeon R5 M320 for better measured performance, unless a specific workload heavily favors Intel's raw texture and compute specifications.