AMD Radeon R7 240 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon R7 240 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are extremely close in raw compute performance, but they target fundamentally different platforms. The Radeon R7 240 is a discrete, single-slot card for desktop systems, while the Iris Pro 5200 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built into Haswell mobile and desktop chips.

For users building a low-cost desktop with a spare PCIe slot, the Radeon R7 240 is the clear pick. It wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a slim 0.4% margin (5063 vs 5042). It also offers a dedicated 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer with a 128-bit memory bus, which is a significant advantage over the Iris Pro's system-shared memory. The R7 240 is end-of-life, but it remains a functional entry-level discrete solution.

For users with a Haswell system that already includes Iris Pro 5200 graphics, the data suggests there is little reason to add an R7 240. The Iris Pro wins the Vulkan benchmark (3677) where the R7 240 has no recorded score, and its average benchmark score across all tests is 4360. While that average is lower than the R7 240's single OpenCL score of 5063, the Iris Pro's higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS vs 499.2 GFLOPS) and texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s vs 15.60 GTexel/s) indicate it is the more capable part for certain workloads.

The verdict is simple: if you already own a Haswell laptop or motherboard with Iris Pro 5200, it is sufficient for basic compute tasks. If you need a standalone GPU for a desktop, the R7 240 is the only one of these two that can be purchased and installed as a separate component.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 240 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using TSMC's 28 nm process. The chip, codenamed Oland, packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. It belongs to the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The GPU operates at a base clock of 730 MHz with a boost clock of 780 MHz. Memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective data rate.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is based on the Haswell GT3e chip using Intel's 22 nm process. It belongs to the Generation 7.5 architecture and the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. No transistor count or die size is recorded in the database. The base clock is just 200 MHz, but the boost clock reaches 1150 MHz, which is substantially higher than the R7 240's boost. Memory is system-shared, meaning bandwidth is system dependent.

Core configuration differs significantly. Both have 320 shading units, but the Iris Pro has 40 texture mapping units (TMUs) and only 4 render output units (ROPs). The R7 240 has 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This leads to very different theoretical rates: the Iris Pro achieves 46.00 GTexel/s texture fill rate versus 15.60 GTexel/s for the R7 240. The R7 240 counters with a higher pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part.

FP32 compute favors the Iris Pro at 736.0 GFLOPS, nearly 50% higher than the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS. This is a direct result of the Intel part's much higher boost clock. The R7 240 has a fixed 2 GB DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Iris Pro relies entirely on shared system memory.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6 on the AMD side versus 4.3 on the Intel side. Vulkan support differs: the R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Iris Pro only supports Vulkan 1.0. The R7 240 also has dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA), while the Iris Pro's outputs are motherboard dependent.

Power characteristics are distinct. The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Iris Pro has a 45 W TDP and is an IGP, so it draws power through the motherboard's socket. The R7 240 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The Iris Pro has no physical dimensions since it is embedded in the CPU package.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 240 wins in the only directly comparable benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 5063 versus the Iris Pro's 5042, a margin of 0.4%. This is a narrow victory, but it is consistent across the nearest rival comparisons. The R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all AMD parts: the Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0% delta), FirePro W4170M (5034, 0.6% behind), Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.9% behind), and Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, 1.3% behind). The R7 240 effectively ties with the R7 M340.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in scenarios where the R7 240 has no recorded benchmark. The Iris Pro has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677, a test that the R7 240 did not run. Its average benchmark score is 4360, which is lower than the R7 240's 5063 OpenCL score, but the average includes the Vulkan result, which is substantially lower than the OpenCL score. The Iris Pro sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, slightly below the R7 240's 30th percentile.

The Iris Pro also wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 736.0 GFLOPS is 47% higher than the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS. Texture fill rate is nearly three times higher at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. This suggests the Intel part is better suited for shader-heavy or texture-heavy workloads, even if the overall OpenCL score is slightly lower.

The R7 240 wins on memory architecture. Dedicated 2 GB DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is more predictable than system-shared memory, where bandwidth depends on the host system's RAM configuration. The R7 240 also has a higher pixel rate (6.240 GPixel/s vs 4.600 GPixel/s), which could benefit rasterization-heavy tasks. For users comparing nearest rivals, the R7 240's closest competitors are all AMD integrated or mobile parts, while the Iris Pro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 0.6% behind the Iris Pro), GeForce 930M (4388, 0.6% ahead), GeForce GT 645M (4411, 1.2% ahead), and AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.5% behind). This places the Iris Pro in a different competitive segment, spanning from low-end mobile to a modern high-end NVIDIA card, which is notable given its integrated nature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042. The R7 240 wins by 0.4%.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677. The AMD R7 240 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The R7 240 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system-shared memory, so its capacity, bus width, and bandwidth are system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 achieves 736.0 GFLOPS, compared to 499.2 GFLOPS for the AMD R7 240. The Intel part is about 47% higher.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The R7 240 has a 30 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a 200 W suggested PSU. The Iris Pro has a 45 W TDP and is an integrated part with no separate power connectors.

Q: Which GPU is better for pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD R7 240 has a pixel rate of 6.240 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro manages 4.600 GPixel/s. The R7 240 is higher by 36%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R7 240 scores 5063, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042. The delta is 0.4% in favor of AMD. This is a near-tie, well within typical run-to-run variance. The R7 240 wins this comparison, giving it a 1-0 record in head-to-head tests.

When looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Iris Pro's Vulkan score of 3677 opens another comparison point. While the R7 240 does not have a Vulkan score, the Iris Pro's Vulkan performance is 27% lower than its own OpenCL score (3677 vs 5042). This indicates the Intel driver stack is less optimized for Vulkan, even though the hardware supports it. The R7 240's Vulkan support is version 1.2.170 versus 1.0 for the Intel part, suggesting better API maturity on the AMD side.

The average benchmark score for the Iris Pro is 4360, which is the mean of its OpenCL (5042) and Vulkan (3677) results. The R7 240's average benchmark score is 5063, equal to its single OpenCL result. Comparing averages, the R7 240 leads by 16.1% (5063 vs 4360). However, this comparison is skewed because the R7 240 has only one recorded benchmark. The Iris Pro's two recorded benchmarks include a weaker Vulkan result, which pulls its average down.

Nearest rival data adds context. The R7 240's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 with an identical average score of 5063 and 0% delta. The FirePro W4170M is 0.6% behind, and the Radeon R5 M430 is 0.9% behind. The R7 240 is essentially tied with a whole family of low-end AMD GPUs. The Iris Pro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, which is 0.6% ahead of the Iris Pro (4335 vs 4360), and the GeForce 930M, which is 0.6% behind. This is a surprising pairing: an integrated 2013 GPU is within 1% of a modern high-end NVIDIA card in this specific database average. The Iris Pro also sits near the GeForce GT 645M (4411, 1.2% ahead) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.5% behind).

The biggest win for the R7 240 is in pixel throughput: 6.240 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s, a 35.7% advantage. The biggest win for the Iris Pro is in texture throughput: 46.00 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s, a 195% advantage. FP32 compute also strongly favors the Intel part at 736.0 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS, a 47.4% gap. These theoretical numbers explain why the OpenCL scores are so close despite very different hardware designs: the R7 240's higher pixel rate and dedicated memory offset the Iris Pro's superior texture and compute rates.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The R7 240 runs at 730 MHz base and 780 MHz boost. The Iris Pro starts at just 200 MHz but boosts to 1150 MHz, a 475% increase from base to boost. The R7 240's boost is only 6.8% above its base. This suggests the Iris Pro is heavily power-managed, spending most of its time at low clocks unless thermal and power headroom allow the boost. The R7 240 runs at a more constant, moderate clock.

In terms of process technology, the R7 240 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Iris Pro uses Intel's 22 nm process, but no transistor or die size data is available. The R7 240 launched on October 7, 2013, with a launch MSRP of 69 USD. The Iris Pro launched on June 2, 2013, with no recorded MSRP. Both are end-of-life products. The R7 240's predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands, while the Iris Pro has no recorded predecessor or successor.

The bus interface differs: the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Iris Pro connects via ring bus to the CPU. This means the R7 240 can be installed in any desktop with a compatible slot, while the Iris Pro is fixed to the motherboard. The R7 240's display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA, giving users three physical connection options. The Iris Pro's display outputs are motherboard dependent, so the available ports vary by system design.

In summary, the recorded data shows two aging graphics solutions that are closely matched in OpenCL compute. The R7 240 edges out a win in the only direct benchmark, but the Iris Pro offers superior theoretical throughput in texture and FP32 workloads. The choice rests on platform: discrete card versus integrated graphics.