Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and Intel HD Graphics 630 are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions from Intel, but they come from different eras and design philosophies. The Iris Pro 5200 is a Haswell-era flagship iGPU with embedded DRAM ambitions, while the HD 630 is a mainstream Kaby Lake part. Benchmark data shows the older Iris Pro 5200 holds a clear lead in compute workloads, but the HD 630 counters with newer API support and better power efficiency. This analysis breaks down the architectural shifts, direct benchmark comparisons, and practical use-case scenarios based solely on the provided data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, which is higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630's average of 4075. This places the Iris Pro 5200 at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 630 sits at the 24th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Iris Pro 5200 scores 5042 versus 3587 for the HD 630. That is a 40.6% advantage for the Iris Pro 5200, making it the single biggest performance differential between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the HD 630 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. According to the head-to-head benchmark data, the Iris Pro 5200 wins both shared tests. The HD 630 has zero wins, while the Iris Pro 5200 has two wins. The HD 630's only advantage appears in API support and power consumption, not in raw scores.

Q: What is the difference in shader core counts?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 features 320 shading units, while the HD 630 has only 192 shading units. This 128-unit difference is a primary reason for the Iris Pro's superior fill rates and compute throughput.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, whereas the HD 630 has a much lower TDP of 15 W. This makes the HD 630 a significantly more power-efficient part for thin-and-light systems.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The HD 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Iris Pro 5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The HD 630 is clearly ahead in API feature levels.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations. The Iris Pro 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture on a 22 nm process node. The HD 630 is based on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, employing the newer Generation 9.5 architecture on a 14 nm++ process node. This process shrink is substantial, allowing the HD 630 to operate at a lower TDP despite being a later design.

Core configuration differs significantly. The Iris Pro 5200 packs 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 ROPs. The HD 630 has fewer resources: 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This translates into a pixel rate of 4.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s for the Iris Pro, versus 3.000 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s for the HD 630. The FP32 compute throughput is 736.0 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the HD 630. Interestingly, the HD 630 does offer FP16 performance at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Iris Pro 5200 lacks entirely.

Clock speeds also differ. The Iris Pro 5200 has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The HD 630 starts at a higher base of 350 MHz but boosts to a lower 1000 MHz. The higher boost on the Iris Pro, combined with more execution units, explains its substantial compute advantage.

Both GPUs use a Ring Bus interface and share system memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." Neither has dedicated VRAM, so performance will scale with the host system's memory speed. The Iris Pro 5200 was released on 2013-06-02, while the HD 630 came later on 2016-08-29. Both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear winner in compute-bound tasks. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Iris Pro 5200 scores 5042 against the HD 630's 3587. This represents a 40.6% delta, a massive lead for the older part. The Iris Pro's higher shading unit count and texture rate directly contribute to this result, as OpenCL workloads heavily utilize parallel arithmetic and texture sampling.

The Vulkan test is much closer. The Iris Pro 5200 scores 3677, while the HD 630 scores 3540, a delta of only 3.9%. This narrower margin suggests that the HD 630's newer architecture and API optimizations partially offset its raw hardware deficit. Vulkan's low-overhead design may help the HD 630 compensate for its fewer execution units.

The HD 630 has an additional benchmark result not shared by the Iris Pro: a Geekbench Metal score of 5099. This indicates strong performance in Apple's Metal API, but no direct comparison is possible since the Iris Pro 5200 lacks a Metal score in the data. The HD 630's average benchmark score of 4075 is dragged down by its lower OpenCL and Vulkan numbers, while the Iris Pro's 4360 average reflects its OpenCL dominance.

In terms of nearest rivals, the Iris Pro 5200 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (deltaPct 0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (deltaPct -0.6%). The HD 630 is closest to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (deltaPct -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (deltaPct 1%). These rival comparisons place both Intel parts in a similar performance tier, despite the Iris Pro's higher raw scores.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals several key differences beyond the obvious generational gap. The process node is a major divider: 22 nm for the Iris Pro 5200 versus 14 nm++ for the HD 630. This newer node allows the HD 630 to achieve its 15 W TDP, a full 30 W lower than the Iris Pro's 45 W TDP.

Shader configuration is another differentiator. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The HD 630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. This results in the Iris Pro delivering 4.600 GPixel/s and 46.00 GTexel/s, while the HD 630 manages only 3.000 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 736.0 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, a near 2x advantage for the Iris Pro. The HD 630 counters with FP16 support at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), which the Iris Pro cannot match.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Iris Pro 5200 runs at a 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. The HD 630 has a 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. The higher boost clock on the Iris Pro helps it extract more performance from its larger core, while the HD 630's higher base clock suggests better sustained operation at lower power.

API support is a clear win for the HD 630. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Iris Pro 5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. This means the HD 630 is better prepared for modern games and applications that leverage newer API features.

Both GPUs use a Ring Bus interface, have system-shared memory, and output to motherboard-dependent displays. Neither has dedicated VRAM, a power connector, or a suggested PSU. The Iris Pro 5200's release date is 2013-06-02, while the HD 630's is 2016-08-29, making the latter over three years newer.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 40.6% lead in OpenCL and 3.9% lead in Vulkan make it the stronger choice for GPU-accelerated workloads like video encoding, scientific computing, or any task that leverages OpenCL. The higher texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 4.600 GPixel/s also benefit applications with heavy texture sampling or pixel fill requirements. The Iris Pro's 320 shading units provide a solid foundation for parallel processing tasks.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in power efficiency and modern API support. Its 15 W TDP makes it far more suitable for laptops and small-form-factor systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. The 45 W TDP of the Iris Pro 5200 is a significant burden in such environments. The HD 630's support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 means it can run newer software titles that require these API versions, even if it does so at lower frame rates. The FP16 support at 768.0 GFLOPS also gives it an edge in AI or machine learning inference tasks that use half-precision arithmetic.

The HD 630 also has a superior Metal benchmark score of 5099, which is higher than any score the Iris Pro achieves in any test. For users in macOS environments, this could make the HD 630 the better option despite its lower overall compute numbers.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off between raw performance and modern efficiency. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the stronger compute part, winning both head-to-head benchmarks with deltas of 40.6% and 3.9%. Its 320 shading units, higher boost clock, and superior fill rates make it the choice for users who need maximum integrated graphics compute power, particularly in OpenCL-heavy workloads. The 26th percentile ranking versus the HD 630's 24th confirms its slight overall performance edge.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is the more practical choice for most modern users. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Iris Pro's 45 W, making it viable in ultraportable devices. The newer Generation 9.5 architecture and 14 nm++ process node bring support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, which are essential for running contemporary games and applications. The FP16 capability and Metal score of 5099 add flexibility that the Iris Pro cannot match.

For a desktop system with adequate cooling and a focus on compute tasks, the Iris Pro 5200's 40.6% OpenCL lead is compelling. For a laptop or low-power build that needs modern API compatibility and efficiency, the HD 630 is the logical pick. Neither part is a gaming powerhouse, but the data shows the Iris Pro 5200 retains a performance crown that the HD 630's newer design does not fully overcome.