AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and AMD Radeon R7 M465 represent two different philosophies in mobile graphics: one is an integrated solution built into a processor, the other a discrete part designed for laptops. The data available for direct comparison is limited, but it reveals a clear performance gap in compute workloads, alongside significant architectural divergence. The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is an end-of-life integrated GPU from Intel, based on the Broadwell GT3e chip and Generation 8.0 architecture, while the R7 M465 is an end-of-life discrete GPU from AMD, built on the Topaz chip and GCN 3.0 architecture. Their average benchmark scores place them in adjacent performance percentiles, yet their individual strengths and weaknesses paint a more nuanced picture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon R7 M465. In this compute-focused test, the AMD part scores 5841, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 manages 4556. This represents a deltaPct of -22, meaning the Intel solution trails the AMD discrete GPU by a substantial 22%. This is a significant margin in a synthetic compute benchmark, suggesting that the R7 M465’s dedicated memory and GCN architecture provide a tangible advantage in raw parallel processing tasks.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has its own benchmark data from other tests, which shows a different side of its capabilities. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Iris Pro scores 6032, and in the Geekbench Metal test, it scores 7764. These scores are notably higher than its OpenCL result, and while they are not directly comparable to the R7 M465’s OpenCL score, they indicate that the Intel part’s performance is highly dependent on the API and workload. The Metal score of 7764, in particular, suggests that on Apple platforms or in Metal-optimized applications, the Iris Pro can punch well above its weight class. The OpenCL deltaPct of -22% is the only direct head-to-head data point, but it is a telling one.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117, which places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8690M, which scores 6137 (a deltaPct of -0.3), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (a deltaPct of 0.6), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (a deltaPct of 0.7). This clustering suggests that the Iris Pro sits in a very competitive performance band, where tiny margins separate it from its immediate peers. The AMD Radeon R7 M465, on the other hand, has an average benchmark score of 5841, placing it in the 33rd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M435 at 5859 (a deltaPct of -0.3), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 (a deltaPct of -1.5), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 5731 (a deltaPct of 1.9). The R7 M465 is therefore slightly below the Iris Pro in overall percentile ranking, despite winning the direct OpenCL comparison. This is an interesting paradox: the AMD part wins the head-to-head compute test, yet its average score across all benchmarks is lower than the Intel part’s average.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, starting with the manufacturing process. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s foundry, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process advantage gives Intel a significant efficiency edge, though the AMD part compensates with a dedicated memory interface. The Intel chip, codenamed Broadwell GT3e, is part of the Generation 8.0 architecture, while the AMD chip, codenamed Topaz, is based on GCN 3.0. These are fundamentally different designs: Intel’s is a unified block integrated into a CPU, whereas AMD’s is a discrete processor with its own memory.

The memory subsystems could not be more different. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and bandwidth that is System Dependent. This means its performance is heavily influenced by the system’s main memory speed and the CPU’s memory controller. In contrast, the AMD Radeon R7 M465 has a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing a fixed bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s. This dedicated memory is a critical advantage for the AMD part, as it does not contend with the CPU for bandwidth and has predictable latency characteristics. The memory clock for the R7 M465 is listed at 1125 MHz, which translates to 4.5 Gbps effective, while the Intel part’s memory clock is simply System Shared.

The compute resources also differ, despite both having 384 shading units. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 48 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 6 render output units (ROPs), resulting in a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 8.192 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 24.58 GTexel/s. This means the Intel part excels in texture-heavy workloads, offering over twice the texture fill rate, while the AMD part has a 24% advantage in pixel fill rate. The FP32 performance is close, with the Intel part at 844.8 GFLOPS and the AMD part at 786.4 GFLOPS, but the AMD part also supports FP16 at 786.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a feature the Intel part does not list.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M465 is the clear winner in the only direct benchmark comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 22% lead over the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. If compute throughput in OpenCL is the primary use case, the AMD part is the superior choice. However, the Intel part has a higher average benchmark score overall (6117 vs 5841) and a higher percentile ranking (35th vs 33rd), driven by its strong Vulkan and Metal results. This suggests that the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 may be better suited for applications that leverage those specific APIs, particularly in ecosystems where Metal is prominent.

The architecture differences also point to a clear verdict for gaming and graphics workloads. The AMD R7 M465’s dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher pixel rate make it a more capable discrete solution for traditional gaming, where consistent memory bandwidth is crucial. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, with its system-shared memory, is at a disadvantage in this regard, but its high texture rate could benefit certain visual effects. For users who need a discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM and prefer OpenCL compute, the R7 M465 is the data-backed choice. For users who are locked into an Intel platform and rely on Vulkan or Metal APIs, the Iris Pro’s higher scores in those tests make it a surprisingly competitive option. The data does not support a universal winner; the choice depends entirely on the software environment and workload.

Specification Differences

The following table outlines the key specification differences between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and the AMD Radeon R7 M465, based solely on the FACT PACK data.

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | AMD Radeon R7 M465 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1024 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 36.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 6 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 8.192 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 24.58 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS | 786.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.0 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2016-05-14 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a higher average benchmark score of 6117, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M465’s average score of 5841.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556, giving the AMD part a 22% lead in this specific test.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and the AMD Radeon R7 M465 have 384 shading units.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon R7 M465 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with a bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How do their pixel rates compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 has a pixel rate of 8.192 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 wins decisively in the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, scoring 22% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. This makes it the stronger choice for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain scientific computing tasks or specific video encoding workflows. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a fixed 36.00 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a clear advantage in scenarios where memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, as it does not have to share system memory with the CPU. The AMD part also has a higher pixel rate (8.192 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s), suggesting better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios like high-resolution rendering with simple shaders.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in the texture fill rate department, offering 52.80 GTexel/s compared to the AMD part’s 24.58 GTexel/s. This makes it better suited for texture-heavy workloads, such as certain types of image filtering or games that use complex texture maps. Its higher FP32 performance (844.8 GFLOPS vs 786.4 GFLOPS) also gives it a slight edge in general-purpose compute that is not memory-bound. The data also shows that the Intel part achieves much higher scores in Geekbench Vulkan (6032) and Geekbench Metal (7764) compared to its OpenCL score, indicating it is the better performer in those specific API environments. Its lower TDP of 15 W, while not a performance metric, suggests it is a more power-efficient solution, which could be a deciding factor in thin-and-light laptops where cooling is limited. Finally, the Intel part’s higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking (35th vs 33rd) indicate that, across a broader range of tests, it is the more consistent performer.