AMD Radeon R5 M430 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits into two clear tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 comes out ahead, but the margins are very different. The OpenCL result is close, while the Vulkan result is a decisive blowout.

Starting with OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5152 against 5042 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. That is a 2.2% advantage for the AMD part. A 2.2% delta in this range is effectively a statistical tie; real-world application variance would likely obscure any consistent winner. Both GPUs sit near the same performance tier in this workload, and the recorded difference is not enough to declare meaningful superiority. The AMD part lands at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits at the 26th percentile, so both are firmly in the lower half of the overall distribution.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 posts 4884, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 manages only 3677. That is a 32.8% lead for the AMD part. This is the largest gap in the head-to-head data and it shows a substantial difference in how the two architectures handle a modern low-level graphics API. The AMD part's Vulkan driver support extends to version 1.2.170, while the Intel part only reaches Vulkan 1.0, and that driver maturity gap is likely reflected in the score. The Intel part's OpenCL score of 5042 is actually higher than its Vulkan score by roughly 37% within its own results, which suggests it performs better under the older API standard. The AMD part, by contrast, keeps its two scores close together, with Vulkan trailing OpenCL by only about 5.2%. For any workload relying on Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

Looking at the wider rival fields for context, the AMD Radeon R5 M430's average benchmark score of 5018 puts it within 0.3% of the AMD FirePro W4170M, 0.4% above the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, 0.8% above the NVIDIA Quadro, and 0.9% below the AMD Radeon R7 M340. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's average score of 4360 is 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 930M, 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, 1.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M, and 1.5% above the AMD FirePro W2100. The window around the Intel part's rivals spans less than 1.5% in either direction, which is a very tight cluster.

Overall, the AMD Radeon M430 wins 2 of 2 head-to-head tests, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins 0. The overall picture is one-sided on paper, but the magnitude of the win matters more than the count. One narrow win, one dominant win, and the AMD part carries both.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon M430 has an average benchmark score of 5018, versus 4360 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, a difference of roughly 15.1% in favor of AMD for the AMD part.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance specifically?

A: The AMD Radeon M430 scores 5152 on Geekbench OpenCL, ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 2.2%, a narrow lead that is close enough to be considered a tie for practical purposes.

Q: Is there a meaningful difference in Vulkan performance between them?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon M430 scores 4884 on Geekbench Vulkan, which is 32.8% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 score of 3677.

Q: Where do both GPUs rank compared to all GPUs in the database percentile rankings?

A: The AMD Radeon M430 sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the AMD part's performance compare to the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, one of its closest rival products?

A: The AMD Radeon M430 is 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce 930M's average score of 4388, which is a fraction of a percent difference, making them essentially equal in the database's measured performance.

Q: Which GPU is faster in its own OpenCL result relative to its own Vulkan result?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 shows a larger internal gap, scoring 5042 in OpenCL versus 3677 in Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon M430 scores 5152 in OpenCL versus 4884 in Vulkan, meaning the Intel part's OpenCL score is much higher relative to its Vulkan score.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear direction for most buyers. If the workload involves Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 is the pick, and it is not close. The AMD part leads by 32.8% in the Vulkan benchmark, a margin that is large enough to be felt in actual use. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 cannot keep pace in that API, and its older Vulkan 1.0 support is a disadvantage in that test.

If the workload is OpenCL, it genuinely does not matter which GPU is chosen. The 2.2% delta between the two parts in OpenCL is a rounding error in performance. In that scenario, other factors beyond raw scores would determine the final choice, and the data does not favor one part over the other in any meaningful way.

The AMD Radeon M430 also has a higher average benchmark score, 5018 versus 4360, and the higher percentile ranking at 30th versus 26th. On the strength of the overall numbers, the AMD part is the safer choice for general use, but the Intel part is not far behind in OpenCL.

Users with an existing system that already has an Iris Pro Graphics 5200 should not feel pressured to switch based on the OpenCL numbers alone. Users selecting a discrete GPU for Vulkan-heavy workloads should favor the AMD part. The Intel part's lower Vulkan score is a significant drawback.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every physical and memory specification. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 56 mm² and 690 million transistors. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses a 22 nm process from Intel, with no die size or transistor count recorded in the database. The AMD part has a transistor density of 12.3M per mm², while the Intel part has no recorded density.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The Intel part boosts much higher, but starts much lower. Memory configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD part has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64 bit bus, with 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with system dependent bandwidth, and the bus width is listed as system shared.

The compute units differ in their balance. Both have 320 shading units, but the AMD part has 20 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, while the Intel part has 40 texture mapping units and only 4 ROPs. The pixel rate reflects this: the AMD part delivers 6.840 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part. The texture rate favors Intel, at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s for the AMD part. FP32 performance also favors Intel, at 736.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part. The Intel part has a TDP of 45 W, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP in the database. Both are IGP form factors, but the AMD part connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the AMD part and motherboard dependent for the Intel part. The AMD part supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel part supports OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1). The AMD part is listed as an end-of-life product with a predecessor of Solar System and a successor of Polaris Mobile. The Intel part is also end-of-life, with a release date of 2013-06-02, and no predecessor or successor recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architecture divide is fundamental. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using a chip codenamed Jet, within the Gem System generation from the R5 M400 family. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses Haswell GT3e, which is Generation 7.5 architecture, and belongs to the HD Graphics generation under Haswell.

The manufacturing processes are different generations as well. AMD uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while Intel uses a 22 nm process at its own foundry. The AMD part integrates 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, which prevents a direct density comparison.

The memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 is a discrete-class part with its own dedicated 4 GB DDR3 memory pool on a 64 bit bus, delivering a fixed 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a true integrated solution, sharing system memory with a bandwidth that is system dependent. That means the AMD part's memory performance is consistent and predictable, while the Intel part's memory performance depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration.

The compute resource allocation also differs. Both parts have 320 shading units, but the AMD part allocates them into 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while the Intel part uses 40 TMUs and 4 ROPs. This produces a distinctive split: the AMD part has twice the pixel throughput per clock, while the Intel part has more than twice the texture throughput. In terms of raw FP32 compute, the Intel part is ahead at 736.0 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS, which is a 34.5% advantage for Intel in pure arithmetic throughput. The AMD part counters with a higher boost clock of 855 MHz versus 1150 MHz for the Intel part. The Intel part's boost clock is higher, but its base clock of 200 MHz is much lower than the AMD part's 780 MHz.

The feature support reflects the age and design philosophy of each part. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and OpenGL 4.6, which are newer API revisions than the Intel part's Vulkan 1.0 and OpenGL 4.3. The Intel part's lower API support is a direct consequence of its older Haswell-era design. The AMD part's newer driver stack is consistent with its higher Vulkan benchmark score. The Intel part's TDP is listed at 45 W, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP, which makes it difficult to compare power draw directly. Both are IGP-class parts, meaning they are not discrete add-in cards, but the AMD part still uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus, which reflects its integration into the CPU package. The production status for both parts is end-of-life for both, so neither is currently a fresh design in the market, but the recorded data shows the AMD part has the modern API edge and the Intel part has the raw ALU throughput edge.