AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions, but they represent different design philosophies and performance tiers. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, though the Intel part holds advantages in specific API workloads and architectural efficiency.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate that the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is the superior choice for general-purpose compute workloads. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available (Geekbench OpenCL), the AMD part scores 6476 against the Intel's 4556, a decisive 42.1% advantage. This places the AMD solution at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits at the 35th percentile, despite having a higher peak score in a different API test.

The data suggests that users prioritizing OpenCL performance—common in productivity and compute tasks—should select the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile. However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 demonstrates stronger performance in Metal (7764) and Vulkan (6032) workloads, indicating it may be the better option for applications leveraging those specific APIs. Given that the AMD part wins the only direct comparison and has a higher average benchmark score (6476 vs 6117), it is the overall pick for compute-heavy usage, while the Intel part is preferable for macOS or Vulkan-centric environments.

Architecture Differences

The two integrated GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturers. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, using the Raven-M chip. It packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses Generation 8.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at Intel, with the Broadwell GT3e chip; its transistor count and die size are not listed.

Core configuration differs significantly. The AMD part features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. This means AMD has 66.7% more shading units, while Intel has 20% more TMUs. Clock speeds also differ: the AMD part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1301 MHz, while the Intel part also starts at 300 MHz base but boosts to only 1100 MHz. The higher boost clock on the AMD part contributes to its compute advantage.

Memory architecture is shared for both—both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The bus interface differs: AMD uses IGP (integrated graphics processor) while Intel uses Ring Bus. The AMD part has a TDP of 10 W, which is 33.3% lower than the Intel part's 15 W, making it more power-efficient on paper.

API support shows a generational gap. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. This means the AMD part offers newer API versions across the board, which can affect feature support and performance in modern titles. The Intel part was released on 2014-09-04, while the AMD part came later on 2019-01-07, explaining the architectural and API differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile scores 6476 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556. This 42.1% delta is substantial and reflects the AMD part's higher shading unit count (640 vs 384), higher boost clock (1301 MHz vs 1100 MHz), and newer architecture. In terms of raw compute throughput, the AMD part delivers 1.665 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Intel's 844.8 GFLOPS—exactly double the FP32 performance. The AMD part also has significantly higher pixel rate (10.41 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s) and nearly identical texture rate (52.04 GTexel/s vs 52.80 GTexel/s).

However, the Intel part shows strength in other API benchmarks not directly compared. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 is 19.9% higher than the AMD's OpenCL score of 6476, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable. The Intel part's Vulkan score of 6032 is also respectable, coming within 6.9% of the AMD's OpenCL result. This suggests that while AMD dominates in OpenCL, the Intel part may be competitive or superior in Metal and Vulkan workloads, which are relevant for specific platforms like macOS and certain game engines.

The nearest rivals data provides context for both parts. The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M with an average score of 6481, a mere 0.1% difference. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6493, -0.3%) and the GeForce GTX 670M (6513, -0.6%), while being 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell (6407). The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137, -0.3%), and it trails the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0.6%) by a small margin, while being 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile scores 6476 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 42.1% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's score of 4556.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 win in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel part has a Geekbench Metal score of 7764 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6032, though these are not directly compared to the AMD part in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile has a TDP of 10 W, which is 33.3% lower than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 15 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to discrete mobile GPUs?

A: The AMD part is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6481) and 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6513). The Intel part is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137) and 0.6% of the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078).

Q: What are the shading unit counts, and does it matter?

A: The AMD part has 640 shading units versus the Intel's 384, a 66.7% difference that directly contributes to the AMD's higher FP32 throughput of 1.665 TFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile wins in OpenCL compute, which is the only head-to-head benchmark available. It also holds advantages in FP32 throughput (1.665 TFLOPS vs 844.8 GFLOPS), pixel rate (10.41 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s), shading units (640 vs 384), and boost clock (1301 MHz vs 1100 MHz). These metrics make it the clear choice for general-purpose compute, OpenCL-accelerated applications, and workloads that benefit from higher raw throughput. Its lower TDP of 10 W also suggests better power efficiency for sustained compute loads.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s vs 52.04 GTexel/s) and TMU count (48 vs 40), indicating that it may have a slight edge in texture-heavy workloads like certain game rendering paths. More significantly, its higher Metal score (7764) and Vulkan score (6032) suggest it is the better performer in those specific API environments. This makes it the preferred choice for macOS users (where Metal is the primary API) or applications that rely heavily on Vulkan. The Intel part's higher average score from multiple benchmarks (6117) versus the AMD's single benchmark (6476) also indicates that the Intel part has been tested across more API scenarios, potentially offering more consistent performance across diverse workloads.

For users on Windows or Linux running OpenCL-based applications, the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is the clear winner. For those on macOS or using Metal/Vulkan-specific software, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's higher scores in those areas make it the more suitable option, despite its overall lower OpenCL performance.