AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are two mobile graphics solutions from an era when dedicated entry-level chips and enhanced integrated graphics competed directly for the same laptops. Both are now end-of-life parts, but the recorded data still tells a clear story: these two trade blows depending on the API, and the gap between them swings dramatically depending on whether the workload runs through OpenCL or Vulkan. The R7 M340 sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 5063, while the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 lands at the 26th percentile with an average of 4360. That overall edge belongs to AMD, but the per-test picture is more interesting than the averages suggest.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data splits exactly down the middle: one win each. Intel takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5042 against AMD's 4932, a 2.2 percent margin. AMD dominates the Geekbench Vulkan test with 5193 versus 3677, a 41.2 percent lead. That contrast is the single most important fact about this matchup.

For OpenCL compute workloads, general-purpose GPU compute, image processing, physics simulations, and similar tasks, the Iris Pro 5200 is the marginally better pick. Its higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS for the R7 M340 lines up with that OpenCL result. The compute advantage is real, if modest.

For gaming and any modern graphics API workload, the R7 M340 is the clear choice. A 41.2 percent advantage in the Vulkan test is not a rounding error; it is a generational gap in API efficiency. The R7 M340 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 against version 1.0 on the Intel part, and DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0 versus 11_1. If the software in question leans on newer graphics features, the AMD chip simply has the support and the performance to back it up.

Texture-heavy workloads also favor Intel on paper. The Iris Pro 5200 has 40 texture mapping units producing 46.00 GTexel/s, more than double the R7 M340's 20 TMUs and 20.42 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rate goes the other way: the R7 M340 delivers 8.168 GPixel/s across its 8 render outputs, while Intel manages 4.600 GPixel/s from just 4 ROPs. Higher resolutions and heavier pixel work favor AMD; heavy texturing at lower resolutions favors Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M340 holds the higher average benchmark score, 5063 against 4360, and sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database versus the 26th percentile for the Iris Pro Graphics 5200. The overall advantage is roughly 16 percent in AMD's favor, driven almost entirely by the Vulkan result.

Q: Can either of these handle modern games?

A: Neither is positioned for serious gaming. Both sit below the 31st percentile against all recorded GPUs. That said, the R7 M340 is the better-equipped of the two for game workloads: its Vulkan performance is 41.2 percent higher, its pixel fill rate is nearly double, and it carries the newer DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170 support.

Q: Do they have the same number of shader units?

A: Yes. Both have 320 shading units. The performance differences come from clock behavior, memory configuration, and API support, not raw shader count. The R7 M340 runs at 943 MHz base and 1021 MHz boost, while the Iris Pro 5200 runs at a 200 MHz base with a 1150 MHz boost.

Q: How do their memory setups differ?

A: The R7 M340 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz for 2 Gbps effective, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so its memory performance varies with the host platform.

Q: Which rivals are these comparable to?

A: The R7 M340 scores within 1.3 percent of the AMD Radeon R7 240, FirePro W4170M, R5 M430, and R7 Graphics. The Iris Pro 5200 is similarly close to the NVIDIA GeForce 930M, GT 645M, and the AMD FirePro W2100, all within about 1.5 percent.

Q: Are these still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The R7 M340 was released on 2015-05-04 and was eventually succeeded by Polaris Mobile. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 dates back to 2013-06-02.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two tests are recorded, and they tell opposite stories.

Geekbench OpenCL goes to Intel, 5042 to 4932. The margin is 2.2 percent, small enough that both parts should be treated as effectively equal for OpenCL compute. Intel's superior FP32 throughput, 736.0 GFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS, and its doubled texture resources, 40 TMUs against 20, plausibly explain the edge here. Compute-heavy software will not notice the difference.

Geekbench Vulkan goes to AMD, 5193 to 3677. That is a 41.2 percent gap, the largest single number in this comparison and the one that decides the overall averages. The Iris Pro 5200 loses more than a third of its relative performance moving from OpenCL to Vulkan, while the R7 M340 actually gains ground, scoring higher in Vulkan than in OpenCL. The recorded data indicates the AMD part's GCN 3.0 architecture and newer Vulkan 1.2.170 support translate directly into API performance, whereas Intel's Generation 7.5 design with Vulkan 1.0 falls well behind on the modern path.

Put the two tests together and the average scores become 5063 for AMD and 4360 for Intel. The R7 M340's lead comes entirely from Vulkan; strip that test away and Intel would be ahead. Anyone choosing between these parts for a specific application should check which API that application uses before deciding.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet diverges in nearly every dimension that matters.

Clocks: the R7 M340 runs a narrow 943 to 1021 MHz range. The Iris Pro 5200 has a very low 200 MHz base with an aggressive 1150 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) on AMD, system shared on Intel.

Memory: dedicated 2 GB DDR3, 64-bit bus, 16.00 GB/s bandwidth on the R7 M340 versus fully shared system memory on the Iris Pro 5200. Dedicated memory means consistent bandwidth; shared memory means dependence on the laptop's system RAM configuration.

Rendering resources: shading units are equal at 320 each. Texture units favor Intel, 40 to 20, and texture rate favors Intel, 46.00 versus 20.42 GTexel/s. ROPs favor AMD, 8 to 4, and pixel rate favors AMD, 8.168 versus 4.600 GPixel/s. FP32 favors Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS against 653.4 GFLOPS; the R7 M340 also lists FP16 at 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while no FP16 figure is recorded for the Intel part.

API support: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 versus 4.3, and Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.0, all in AMD's favor.

Platform integration: the R7 M340 is a discrete chip on PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Iris Pro 5200 is an integrated GPU on a Ring Bus with motherboard-dependent display outputs. The Intel part carries a 45 W TDP and an IGP slot classification; no power figures are recorded for the AMD chip. AMD lists its die at 125 mm² with 1,550 million transistors on TSMC's 28 nm process; Intel's corresponding physical figures are not recorded, though its 22 nm process node is the smaller of the two.

Architecture Differences

These parts come from opposite design philosophies of the mid-2010s.

The R7 M340 is AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, part of the Gem System generation (R7 M300), built on TSMC's 28 nm node. It follows the Solar System lineage and precedes Polaris Mobile. GCN was designed from the start as a unified graphics-and-compute architecture, which is reflected in its balanced FP32 and FP16 ratings and its forward-looking API support, including full DirectX 12_0 feature level and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is Intel's Haswell GT3e, Generation 7.5 of Intel's HD Graphics line, fabricated in-house on Intel's 22 nm process. It represents Intel's top integrated tier of its era, differentiated from lesser Haswell graphics by its larger execution resources: the full 40 texture units and the highest boost clock of the family line at 1150 MHz. Its API ceiling is lower, topping out at DirectX 12 feature level 11_1, OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0.

The bus difference matters for system design. PCIe 3.0 x8 gives the AMD chip its own link to the host; the Ring Bus ties the Intel GPU directly into the CPU fabric, trading dedicated memory for lower integration cost and shared system RAM.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split.

Pick the R7 M340 for gaming and anything running on Vulkan or modern DirectX 12_0 paths. The 41.2 percent Vulkan advantage, doubled pixel fill rate, newer API support, and dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 make it the stronger graphics part, and its higher 30th percentile placement confirms that at the aggregate level.

Pick the Iris Pro 5200 for OpenCL compute and texture-heavy work at modest resolutions. It wins the OpenCL test, delivers higher raw FP32 throughput and double the texture rate, and does it all as an integrated solution with no separate memory to budget for. Its nearest rivals in the database, the GeForce 930M and GT 645M, sit in the same performance band, which frames it as a competitive integrated option of its generation.

Both are end-of-life hardware sitting in the bottom third of the database. Neither is a performance pick by today's standards, but between the two, the recorded results favor AMD for graphics and Intel for compute.