AMD Radeon R7 M440 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct compute comparisons between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and the AMD Radeon R7 M440, and the results split evenly, with each part claiming one victory. The contests are close, but the margins tell distinct stories about how each chip handles different workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 posts a score of 5214, which is 12.6% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556. That is a decisive margin, not a narrow one. The AMD part is clearly the stronger compute device in this particular API, and the delta is large enough to suggest a real architectural advantage rather than a measurement artifact. For context, the Intel part's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6117, while the AMD part's average is 5483. The OpenCL result for the AMD part is somewhat below its own average, but it still comfortably outruns the Intel part in the same test.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6032, which is 4.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 5751. The margin here is smaller than the OpenCL gap, but it is still a clear win. The Intel part's Vulkan score is nearly its best recorded result across all benchmarks, trailing only its Geekbench Metal score of 7764. The AMD part's Vulkan score is its strongest result as well, beating its OpenCL score of 5214. So both parts perform best under Vulkan, but the Intel part has the higher ceiling.

Looking at the overall averages, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits at 6117 with a 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 averages 5483 and sits at the 32nd percentile. That is a 634-point gap in favor of the Intel part, roughly 11.6% higher on average. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137, -0.3%), NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0.7%), and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 1.1%). The AMD part's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, -0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, -0.5%), NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, 0.3%), and AMD Radeon 610M (5444, 0.7%). This places the Intel part in a slightly higher performance band overall, despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head.

The head-to-head data indicates a workload-dependent relationship. The AMD part wins the OpenCL compute test by a solid double-digit margin, while the Intel part wins the Vulkan test by a modest single-digit margin. The average scores, however, suggest that the Intel part has the better overall profile across a broader set of tasks, since its average is boosted by a strong Metal result that the AMD part cannot match (the AMD part has no recorded Metal benchmark).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M440 is the clear winner in OpenCL compute workloads. Its score of 5214 versus 4556 for the Intel part represents a 12.6% advantage. This is the kind of result that matters for OpenCL-based applications, which often include general-purpose GPU compute tasks, video encoding, and certain scientific or rendering workloads. If the software stack relies on OpenCL, the AMD part is the safer choice based on the recorded data.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in Vulkan, scoring 6032 versus 5751, a 4.9% edge. Vulkan is a modern graphics and compute API, and this result suggests the Intel architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently. Additionally, the Intel part has a Geekbench Metal score of 7764, which is its highest recorded benchmark and far exceeds anything the AMD part can produce (the AMD part has no Metal result). For macOS or Metal-based applications, the Intel part is the only option with recorded data, and that data is strong.

The Intel part also wins on average benchmark score: 6117 versus 5483. This is an 11.6% overall advantage, driven by the Metal result and the strong Vulkan score. The AMD part's OpenCL win is real, but it is offset by a weaker Vulkan score and the absence of a Metal result. For users who need broad API coverage, the Intel part has recorded results in three APIs (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) while the AMD part has only two (OpenCL, Vulkan). The Intel part also has a higher percentile ranking (35th versus 32nd), meaning it outperforms a slightly larger share of the GPU population in the database.

The AMD part wins in memory allocation, however. It has 4 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." For workloads that benefit from dedicated VRAM, the AMD part has a structural advantage, even though the bandwidth figure is modest.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117, which is 634 points higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 5483. The Intel part also ranks at the 35th percentile versus the AMD part's 32nd percentile.

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

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5214 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.6% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556. This is the AMD part's largest margin of victory in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6032 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the AMD Radeon R7 M440's 5751 by 4.9%. This is the Intel part's only head-to-head win, but it contributes to a higher overall average.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M440 have any benchmark advantage beyond OpenCL?

A: The AMD part has a dedicated 4 GB DDR3 memory pool with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth on a 64-bit bus, while the Intel part relies on system shared memory. However, in recorded compute benchmarks, the AMD part only wins the OpenCL test; it loses the Vulkan test and has no Metal result.

Q: What is the closest rival for each GPU according to the database?

A: For the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8690M with an average score of 6137, a 0.3% difference. For the AMD Radeon R7 M440, the closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 with an average score of 5467, a 0.3% difference.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part has higher version support across all three APIs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Intel part has more shading units and TMUs, while the AMD part has more ROPs. The pixel rate for the Intel part is 6.600 GPixel/s versus 7.128 GPixel/s for the AMD part. The texture rate is 52.80 GTexel/s for the Intel part versus 17.82 GTexel/s for the AMD part. The FP32 compute is 844.8 GFLOPS for the Intel part versus 570.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part. The AMD part also has an FP16 rate of 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel part has no recorded FP16 rate.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The AMD part has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The Intel part's memory is system shared with system-dependent bandwidth, while the AMD part has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The Intel part is an IGP on a Ring Bus interface with display outputs described as "Motherboard Dependent." The AMD part is also an IGP but uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The Intel part has a TDP of 15 W, while the AMD part has no recorded TDP. The Intel part is fabricated on a 14 nm process by Intel, while the AMD part uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture. It belongs to the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 uses the Meso chip with GCN 3.0 architecture, belonging to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: Intel's integrated graphics on a 14 nm process versus AMD's dedicated mobile GPU on a 28 nm process.

The process node difference is significant. Intel uses 14 nm, while AMD uses 28 nm. This gives the Intel part a density advantage, although the AMD part's transistor count of 1,550 million and die size of 125 mm² are recorded, while the Intel part's transistor count and die size are not. The AMD part's transistor density is 12.4M per mm².

The memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Intel part uses system shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the AMD part has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s, while the Intel part's bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning it varies with the host system's memory configuration.

API support differs across the board. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part has higher version support in all three APIs. The AMD part also has a recorded FP16 rate of 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Intel part has none.

The bus interface differs: the Intel part uses Ring Bus, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This reflects the Intel part's nature as a true IGP integrated into the CPU package, while the AMD part, though also an IGP, connects via a standard PCIe interface. Display output dependencies also differ: the Intel part depends on the motherboard, while the AMD part depends on the portable device. Both parts are end-of-life, but the Intel part was released in September 2014, while the AMD part was released in May 2016. The AMD part lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile," while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.