AMD Radeon R5 M335 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear split between the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. Each card claims a decisive victory in one of the two available Geekbench tests, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the workload. The AMD R5 M335 averages 4752 points, while the Intel Iris Pro 5200 averages 4360 points, but that overall average masks a significant divergence in API-specific performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their head-to-head matchups exactly one win apiece, with the victor in each test winning by a substantial margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 takes a clear lead, scoring 5042 against the AMD R5 M335's 4745. That is a 5.9% advantage for Intel, a meaningful gap that places the Iris Pro 5200 ahead in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL. The Intel part's higher raw FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD's 659.2 GFLOPS, supports this result. The Iris Pro also benefits from a significantly higher texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus the R5 M335's 20.60 GTexel/s, which likely contributes to its success in this benchmark.

The reverse is true in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon R5 M335 dominates. It scores 4758, while the Intel Iris Pro 5200 manages only 3677. This is a 29.4% victory for AMD, an enormous margin that completely flips the narrative from the OpenCL result. The R5 M335's Vulkan score is even slightly higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting strong driver optimization for the Vulkan API on AMD's part. In contrast, the Intel part's Vulkan score is a dramatic drop from its OpenCL result, indicating weak Vulkan support on the Haswell architecture. The Intel GPU's Vulkan API support is listed as version 1.0, while AMD lists version 1.2.170, which may explain the massive performance disparity in this test.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the AMD R5 M335's average score of 4752 places it within a tight cluster of rivals. It sits just 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX (4727) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P400 (4684). It trails the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788) by 0.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) by 0.8%. The Intel Iris Pro 5200, with its average of 4360, occupies a different tier. It is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) and 1.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295), but it falls 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411). The data shows that the AMD part's average is roughly 9% higher than the Intel part's, but the individual test results are what truly matter for specific use cases.

The Verdict

The verdict depends entirely on which API your software targets. For OpenCL-based workloads, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the clear winner, delivering a 5.9% performance advantage over the AMD R5 M335. Its higher FP32 throughput and texture fill rate give it a genuine edge in compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, and its 45 W TDP as an integrated part makes it a practical choice for systems where power consumption is a concern. The data indicates that for legacy compute applications or OpenCL-centric rendering tasks, Intel's solution is the stronger performer.

For Vulkan-based applications, the AMD Radeon R5 M335 is the only rational choice. Its 29.4% lead over the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the Vulkan benchmark is overwhelming, and its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 versus Intel's 1.0 suggests a more modern and capable driver stack. If you are running modern games or applications that use Vulkan, the AMD part will provide a dramatically smoother experience. The R5 M335 also holds a slight edge in overall average score, 4752 versus 4360, which indicates it is the more consistently capable GPU across both tested APIs. Users who need a balanced mobile GPU for a mix of older and newer workloads should favor the AMD part, while those with a strict OpenCL-only environment can opt for the Intel without sacrificing performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has a higher average benchmark score of 4752, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 4360.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in OpenCL?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 5.9% higher than the AMD R5 M335's score of 4745.

Q: What is the performance gap in Vulkan between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 scores 4758 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 29.4% higher than the Intel Iris Pro 5200's score of 3677.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon R5 M335 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 support DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M335 has a pixel rate of 8.240 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Intel Iris Pro 5200's 4.600 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the difference in their texture fill rates?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, which is more than double the AMD R5 M335's 20.60 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their core configurations and memory architecture. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 features 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 also has 320 shading units but pairs them with 40 TMUs and only 4 ROPs. This configuration gives the Intel part a much higher texture fill rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus the AMD's 20.60 GTexel/s, but the AMD part has a higher pixel fill rate of 8.240 GPixel/s compared to the Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s.

Memory is another major point of divergence. The AMD R5 M335 comes with 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a fixed bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Intel Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." This means the Intel part's memory performance is entirely dependent on the host system's RAM configuration, while the AMD part has a predictable, dedicated memory pool. The AMD GPU's memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock.

The remaining specifications show clear differences in clock behavior. The Intel Iris Pro 5200 has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz, while the AMD R5 M335 lists no base or boost clock in the data. The AMD part has a TDP that is not listed, while the Intel part is rated at 45 W. The bus interface also differs, with the AMD R5 M335 using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the Intel Iris Pro using a Ring Bus. Both support OpenGL, but AMD lists version 4.6 while Intel lists version 4.3. Vulkan support also differs, with AMD at version 1.2.170 and Intel at version 1.0.

Architecture Differences

The architectures are generations apart. The AMD Radeon R5 M335 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Exo" chip, and belongs to the Gem System generation (R5 M300 series). It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip, based on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, and belongs to the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. It is built on a 22 nm process at Intel, though its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

The AMD part was released on 2015-10-20 and lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile." The Intel part was released on 2013-06-02 and has no listed predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products. The AMD GPU's power connectors are listed as "None," while the Intel part's are not specified. Display outputs for the AMD part are "Portable Device Dependent," while the Intel part's are "Motherboard Dependent," reflecting their respective roles as a discrete mobile GPU and an integrated graphics processor. The Intel part's slot width is listed as "IGP," confirming its integrated nature, while the AMD part has no slot width listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M335 wins in Vulkan-based workloads. Its 29.4% lead over the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in Geekbench Vulkan is the single largest performance gap in this comparison, making it the definitive choice for any application that leverages the Vulkan API. The AMD part also wins on pixel fill rate, with 8.240 GPixel/s versus the Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s, which can benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks. Its dedicated 2 GB memory buffer provides predictable performance without relying on system RAM, and its higher average benchmark score of 4752 versus 4360 makes it the more consistent performer across the tested APIs.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in OpenCL-based workloads. Its 5.9% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5042, demonstrates superior compute capability for applications that use this API. The Intel part's higher FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS and texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s give it a hardware advantage in these tasks. Its 45 W TDP is a practical consideration for integrated systems where power efficiency is paramount. For users running OpenCL-centric applications like certain video encoders or compute shaders, the Intel Iris Pro 5200 is the stronger option. However, its weakness in Vulkan, scoring 3677 compared to the AMD's 4758, makes it a poor choice for modern graphics workloads that have moved to the Vulkan API. The data is clear: pick the AMD R5 M335 for Vulkan, pick the Intel Iris Pro 5200 for OpenCL.