AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two shared tests for these integrated graphics processors, and the results show a clear, if uneven, pattern of dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile posts a score of 7,435 against 4,556 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. That is a 63.2% advantage, a margin that separates these two chips into entirely different performance tiers despite both being integrated solutions. The OpenCL test stresses raw compute throughput, and the AMD part simply has more resources to throw at the workload.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, narrows the gap considerably but still favors the AMD chip. The Radeon Vega 8 Mobile scores 6,970 while the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 manages 6,032, a 15.6% difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose inefficiencies in driver overhead and hardware scheduling. The fact that the Intel part closes some distance here suggests its architecture handles modern API workloads with relatively better efficiency, but it is still behind. Across the two recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in direct comparisons.

Looking at the broader database averages, the AMD part carries an average benchmark score of 7,203. That places it at the 39th percentile of all GPUs ever tested. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6,117, which lands at the 35th percentile. These percentile figures matter because they position both chips in the lower-middle range of the entire GPU landscape, but the AMD unit sits measurably higher.

The nearest rivals in the database for the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile are instructive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 averages 7,222, which is 0.3% below the AMD chip. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE averages 7,171, 0.4% above. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 averages 7,170, 0.5% above. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 averages 7,157, 0.6% above. These are all discrete graphics cards, some of them quite old, and the integrated AMD solution trades blows with them within a single percentage point. That is remarkable for an IGP. The AMD chip is essentially neck-and-neck with a GTX 750, a card that required a PCIe slot and its own cooling.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits in a different neighborhood. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6,137, 0.3% above the Intel part. The NVIDIA RTX A400 averages 6,078, 0.6% above. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 averages 6,077, 0.7% above. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 averages 6,049, 1.1% above. These are mostly mobile or low-power discrete parts, and the Iris Pro 6200 is competitive with them, but it is not threatening the desktop-class cards that the AMD Vega 8 Mobile can match.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head table tell the story clearly. The OpenCL gap of 63.2% is the single largest margin in either direction. The Vulkan gap of 15.6% is substantial but not overwhelming. No test in the database shows the Intel part winning against the AMD chip. The data does not support any ambiguity here: the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is the faster GPU in every recorded comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins on raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 7,435 is not just higher than the Intel part; it is higher than every one of its own nearest rivals except for a marginal 0.4% deficit to the GTX 560 SE and a 0.5% deficit to the Iris Pro P580. The FP32 throughput of 1,127.4 GFLOPS gives it a theoretical compute ceiling that the Intel chip cannot approach. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, by contrast, is rated at 844.8 GFLOPS. That difference in raw floating-point capability shows up directly in the OpenCL benchmark, where the AMD part is 63.2% ahead.

The Intel part has its own strengths, but they do not translate into benchmark wins. Its texture rate is 52.80 GTexel/s, which is actually higher than the AMD chip's 35.23 GTexel/s. That means the Intel architecture can fill texels faster, which helps in certain fill-rate-bound scenarios. However, the pixel rate tells a different story: the AMD part outputs 8.808 GPixel/s against 6.600 GPixel/s for Intel. The AMD chip has 8 ROPs versus 6 for Intel, and that extra rasterization hardware shows in the pixel throughput figure.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 does have one recorded benchmark that the AMD part does not share: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 7,764. That is actually the highest single score recorded for either chip in any test. Metal is Apple's API, and the fact that the Intel part scores that high suggests it has strong driver optimization for that specific environment. But the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile has no Metal score in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. In the tests where both chips appear, the AMD part wins every time.

For use cases, the AMD chip is the better choice for compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, or any task that scales with FP32 throughput. The Intel chip, with its higher texture rate and strong Metal showing, might fare better in texture-bound graphics workloads or in Apple-specific software environments. But the database records no test where the Intel part beats the AMD part in a shared benchmark. The wins column is 2-0, and that is the final word.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is built on GCN 5.0 architecture, which AMD calls Vega. The chip is codenamed Raven-M and belongs to the Vega IGP generation based on Raven Ridge-M. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries and contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 23.5 million per square millimeter. That is a large die for an integrated GPU, which explains why AMD could pack in 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses Generation 8.0 architecture, Intel's Broadwell GT3e implementation. It is also on a 14 nm process, but at Intel's own foundry. The database does not record transistor count, die size, or density for the Intel part, so those figures cannot be compared directly. What is known is that the Intel chip has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The AMD part has more shaders and more ROPs, but fewer TMUs. That configuration explains the benchmark results: AMD's extra shaders feed its FP32 throughput, while Intel's extra TMUs feed its texture rate.

Clock speeds are nearly identical. The AMD chip has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1101 MHz. The Intel chip has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The difference is one megahertz, effectively a tie. Both chips rely on system memory, with the bus width and bandwidth listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. Memory size and type are also shared with the host system. Neither chip has dedicated VRAM, which means memory bandwidth scales with whatever DRAM the laptop or motherboard provides.

The API support differs in meaningful ways. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD chip has a higher feature level in DirectX, a newer OpenGL version, and a much newer Vulkan version. That explains why the Vulkan benchmark gap, while still favoring AMD, is smaller than the OpenCL gap. Both chips run Vulkan, but the AMD driver stack is more mature for that API.

The power envelope is also different. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is rated at 25 W TDP, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is rated at 15 W. That 10 W difference is significant for laptop designs. The AMD chip draws more power to feed its larger shader array, and the benchmark results reflect that trade-off. The Intel part uses less power but delivers less compute performance. The bus interface differs as well: the AMD chip uses a standard IGP connection, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus. The display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD and motherboard dependent for Intel, reflecting their different target platforms.

The release dates are far apart. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 came out on September 4, 2014. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile arrived on January 7, 2019. That is a gap of more than four years. Both are now end-of-life products. The AMD chip has a predecessor listed as GCN 3.0 IGP and a successor as Navi II IGP. The Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6,117. The AMD part sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, the Intel part at the 35th.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile scores 7,435 against 4,556 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. That is a 63.2% advantage for the AMD chip, the largest margin recorded in any shared test.

Q: Does the Intel part win any benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins both. The Intel part does record a Geekbench Metal score of 7,764, but the AMD chip has no Metal score in the database for comparison.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile has 512 shading units. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 384 shading units. The AMD chip also has 8 ROPs versus 6, but the Intel chip has 48 TMUs versus 32.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD chip has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 1101 MHz. The Intel chip has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz. The boost clocks differ by only 1 MHz.

Q: Which chip has better API support?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 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. The AMD part is ahead in every API version.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins every shared benchmark against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. In OpenCL, the margin is 63.2%. In Vulkan, it is 15.6%. The average benchmark score favors AMD by over 1,000 points, 7,203 against 6,117. The percentile ranking favors AMD as well, 39th against 35th.

The AMD chip achieves this with 512 shading units, a 1101 MHz boost clock, and 1,127.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput. It also draws 25 W, which is 10 W more than the Intel part. That power budget buys real performance. The Intel chip counters with 48 TMUs and a 52.80 GTexel/s texture rate, but that advantage does not translate into a single benchmark win.

For a system builder or laptop buyer choosing between these two, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is the faster GPU in every recorded metric that compares them directly. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 offers lower power consumption and a higher texture fill rate, but those attributes do not show up as wins in the database. The AMD part also has newer API support across the board, which matters for modern games and compute applications.

The only context where the Intel part shows a unique strength is the Geekbench Metal score of 7,764. That is a strong result for Apple-specific software, but it is not a head-to-head comparison. In the tests where both chips appear, the verdict is consistent: choose the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile for higher performance. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 remains a capable IGP for its 15 W envelope, but it is outclassed by the AMD chip in compute throughput, rasterization rate, and API modernity. The database records two wins for AMD, zero for Intel, and the conclusion follows the numbers.