AMD Radeon R7 M260 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along API lines, giving each GPU one decisive victory. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 dominates in the Geekbench Vulkan test, posting a score of 5289 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200’s 3677. That is a 43.8% advantage, a massive gap that signals a clear edge in modern, low-level graphics APIs. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the R7 M260 is the stronger part by a wide margin.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test instead, scoring 5042 versus the R7 M260’s 3708. That is a 26.5% lead for Intel, showing that in OpenCL compute tasks—often used for general-purpose GPU acceleration—the Iris Pro is substantially faster. The direction of the win matters: OpenCL favors Intel’s architecture here, while Vulkan favors AMD’s.

Overall, the two GPUs split their head-to-head exactly one win apiece. The average benchmark score for the R7 M260 is 4499, while the Iris Pro averages 4360. That puts the AMD part about 3.2% ahead on average, though the individual test results tell a more polarized story than the aggregate suggests. Both GPUs sit at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same tier of overall performance despite their divergent strengths.

In practical terms, the use case dictates the winner. If the software stack runs on Vulkan—common in newer games and some professional applications—the R7 M260 is the clear choice. If the workload is OpenCL compute, such as video encoding or physics simulation, the Iris Pro pulls ahead. The data does not support a single “better” GPU; it supports two specialized roles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 wins decisively, scoring 5289 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to 3677 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. That is a 43.8% advantage for AMD.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins, scoring 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3708 for the AMD Radeon R7 M260. Intel leads by 26.5% in this test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has an average benchmark score of 4499, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 averages 4360. AMD is ahead by roughly 3.2% on average.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance tier overall?

A: Yes. Both sit at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they belong to the same general performance class, even though their individual test results diverge sharply.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: For the AMD Radeon R7 M260, the nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W4190M (average score 4505, -0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, -1.3%), AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, -1.5%), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, -1.7%). For the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, +0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388, -0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411, -1.2%), and AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, +1.5%).

Q: Which GPU has the higher peak clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 boosts to 980 MHz, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 boosts to 1150 MHz. However, the AMD part has a much higher base clock of 940 MHz versus Intel’s 200 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results are starkly opposed. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 5289, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 3677. The delta is 43.8% in AMD’s favor. This is not a marginal win; it is a near-total rout. The R7 M260’s architecture, GCN 3.0, clearly handles Vulkan’s low-level command buffers and explicit memory management far more efficiently than Intel’s Generation 7.5 design. For any game or application built on Vulkan, the AMD part delivers over 40% more performance, which is the difference between playable and unplayable in many scenarios.

The reverse happens in Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, and the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708. Intel leads by 26.5%. The Iris Pro’s 40 texture mapping units and higher boost clock of 1150 MHz contribute to a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, nearly double the R7 M260’s 23.52 GTexel/s. OpenCL workloads that stress texture throughput and shader execution favor Intel’s wider TMU configuration. The AMD part’s higher pixel rate (7.840 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s) does not compensate in this compute test.

Looking at the rivals helps contextualize these scores. The R7 M260’s average of 4499 sits just below the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) and Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560), with deltas of -0.1% and -1.3% respectively. It is also close to the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, -1.5%) and the R5 M230 (4577, -1.7%). The Iris Pro’s average of 4360 is bracketed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, +0.6%) and the GeForce 930M (4388, -0.6%), with the GT 645M (4411, -1.2%) and FirePro W2100 (4295, +1.5%) nearby. These rival lists show that both GPUs are surrounded by similar-performance parts, but the head-to-head reveals the API-specific swings that averages hide.

The Vulkan result is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. A 43.8% lead is rare in integrated-to-discrete GPU comparisons, and it underscores that the R7 M260 is not just “better” at Vulkan—it is categorically superior. The OpenCL result, while smaller, is still substantial, with Intel holding a quarter-lap lead. Together, these two numbers define the entire competitive landscape: pick the API, pick the winner.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on memory and clock specifications. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth listed as System Dependent. This means the AMD part has a fixed, predictable memory pool, while the Intel part’s performance scales with the host system’s RAM speed and allocation.

Clock behavior also differs. The R7 M260 runs at a 940 MHz base clock and boosts to 980 MHz. The Iris Pro starts at a very low 200 MHz base but boosts to 1150 MHz. The Intel part’s dynamic range is much wider, suggesting aggressive power management that ramps up under load. The AMD part runs closer to a fixed clock, with only a 40 MHz boost headroom.

Shading resources are comparable but not identical. The R7 M260 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. AMD’s higher shader count and ROP count favor pixel throughput, reflected in its 7.840 GPixel/s pixel rate versus Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s. Intel’s TMU advantage drives its 46.00 GTexel/s texture rate against AMD’s 23.52 GTexel/s.

The memory clocks differ in kind: the R7 M260 runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the Iris Pro’s memory is System Shared with no dedicated clock. The R7 M260’s FP32 performance is 752.6 GFLOPS, and the Iris Pro is nearly identical at 736.0 GFLOPS. The AMD part also lists FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel part has no FP16 data.

Interface and power characteristics separate them further. The R7 M260 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Iris Pro uses a Ring Bus, reflecting its integration into the CPU die. The Iris Pro has a 45 W TDP and is listed as an IGP, while the R7 M260 has no TDP listed. The Intel part’s display outputs are Motherboard Dependent, whereas the AMD part lists none.

Architecture Differences

The foundational architectures are from different eras and vendors. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses GCN 3.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses Generation 7.5 (Haswell GT3e), built on a 22 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size listed. The process node difference—28 nm versus 22 nm—gives Intel a density advantage, though the R7 M260’s transistor density is listed at 12.4M / mm².

The AMD chip is codenamed Topaz and belongs to the Gem System generation (R7 M200 series). The Intel chip is Haswell GT3e, part of the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. The R7 M260’s predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The Iris Pro lists no predecessor or successor.

API support differs meaningfully. The R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part’s newer API versions, particularly Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.0, likely explain its Vulkan benchmark dominance. The Intel part’s older OpenGL 4.3 and DirectX 11_1 feature level may limit its compatibility with newer titles.

The R7 M260 is a discrete GPU with dedicated memory, while the Iris Pro is an integrated GPU sharing system memory. This architectural split is fundamental: the R7 M260’s 64-bit DDR3 bus provides a fixed 14.40 GB/s, while the Iris Pro’s bandwidth is System Dependent. The Iris Pro’s 45 W TDP reflects its integration into a CPU package, whereas the R7 M260’s power draw is not listed.

The release dates are close but distinct: the R7 M260 launched on 2014-06-10, and the Iris Pro launched on 2013-06-02. Both are End-of-life production status. The R7 M260’s GCN 3.0 architecture is a mature discrete design, while the Iris Pro’s Generation 7.5 is an integrated solution that leverages Intel’s manufacturing lead.

The Verdict

The data supports a conditional verdict rather than a single winner. If the target workload uses Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is the only choice—its 5289 score versus 3677 represents a 43.8% advantage that no other benchmark in this comparison approaches. For modern gaming or Vulkan-based compute, the R7 M260 delivers over 40% more performance, which is a decisive margin.

If the workload uses OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins with a 5042 score versus 3708, a 26.5% lead. For OpenCL compute tasks like video processing or scientific workloads, Intel’s higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) and dynamic boost clock (1150 MHz) provide a clear edge. The Iris Pro’s average score of 4360 also places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, +0.6%), showing it competes well in its niche.

For mixed-use scenarios, the R7 M260’s higher average score (4499 versus 4360) gives it a slight edge, but that 3.2% difference is dwarfed by the API-specific swings. The R7 M260 also has the advantage of dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory, which provides consistent bandwidth (14.40 GB/s) regardless of host system configuration, whereas the Iris Pro depends on System Shared memory.

The R7 M260’s newer API support—Vulkan 1.2.170, DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6—makes it more future-proof for software that adopts modern standards. The Iris Pro’s older API versions (Vulkan 1.0, DirectX 11_1, OpenGL 4.3) may struggle with newer titles. However, the Iris Pro’s 45 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for low-power systems where a discrete GPU is not an option.

The nearest rivals confirm the tier. The R7 M260 sits within 1.7% of the AMD FirePro W4190M, Intel HD Graphics P530, AMD Radeon RX 560, and Radeon R5 M230. The Iris Pro sits within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, GeForce 930M, GeForce GT 645M, and FirePro W2100. Both GPUs are mid-pack performers, not outliers.

Choose the R7 M260 for Vulkan-centric workloads and dedicated memory needs. Choose the Iris Pro for OpenCL compute and integrated, power-efficient designs. The data does not crown a single champion; it assigns roles based on the API in question.