GPU Comparison

Intel HD Graphics P530 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 are two end-of-life integrated graphics processors from different Intel generations, and the benchmark data shows a clear split in their strengths. The Iris Pro 5200, built on the older Haswell architecture, dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the P530, from the newer Skylake family, takes a decisive lead in Vulkan graphics performance. Both occupy the same 26th percentile among all GPUs, yet their average benchmark scores differ by only 4.6% (4560 vs 4360), suggesting that despite their architectural age gap, they deliver comparable overall performance in different contexts. The data indicates that neither part is a universal winner; instead, the choice hinges entirely on the application's API and workload type.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the clear winner in OpenCL compute tasks. In the geekbench_opencl test, it scores 5042 against the P530's 4549, a margin of 9.8%. This is a substantial advantage for a synthetic compute benchmark, indicating that the Iris Pro 5200's larger execution resource pool, 320 shading units versus 192, translates directly into higher raw throughput for general-purpose GPU computing. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications like video encoding filters or scientific simulations, the older Iris Pro part is the stronger choice.

Conversely, the Intel HD Graphics P530 wins decisively in the Vulkan graphics API test. It scores 4571 compared to the Iris Pro 5200's 3677, a massive 24.3% lead. This is a generational leap in driver and hardware efficiency; the P530's newer Generation 9.0 architecture supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Iris Pro 5200 is limited to Vulkan 1.0. The P530's advantage in this modern API suggests it handles draw calls and rendering pipelines more efficiently, making it the better option for any Vulkan-based game or graphics application.

The wins split evenly at one benchmark each, meaning the "best" GPU depends entirely on the software environment. For legacy OpenCL compute, the Iris Pro 5200 is superior; for contemporary Vulkan rendering, the P530 is far ahead. There is no overlap in their strengths, they do not trade blows in the same test but instead dominate in mutually exclusive domains. The P530's average score of 4560 is actually 4.6% higher than the Iris Pro 5200's 4360, driven by the Vulkan result being far more lopsided than the OpenCL result.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different Intel architecture generations. The P530 is built on the Skylake GT2 chip using Generation 9.0 architecture and a 14 nm+ process node, while the Iris Pro 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip with Generation 7.5 architecture on a 22 nm process. This process node difference is critical: the 14 nm+ node allows for higher transistor density and lower power consumption at the same performance level, which is reflected in the P530's 15 W TDP versus the Iris Pro 5200's 45 W TDP.

The shading units tell an interesting story. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 4 raster output units (ROPs), while the P530 has only 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. Despite having 67% more shading units, the Iris Pro 5200's texture rate is 46.00 GTexel/s versus the P530's 16.00 GTexel/s, a 2.9x difference, and its pixel rate is 4.600 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s. The Iris Pro 5200's FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS is nearly double the P530's 384.0 GFLOPS. This raw compute advantage confirms the OpenCL result, but the P530's architecture compensates with higher base and boost clocks: 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost versus the Iris Pro 5200's 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost.

The P530 supports more advanced APIs, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Iris Pro 5200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.0. The P530's OpenGL support is also newer at 4.6 versus 4.3. The die size is specified only for the P530 at 123 mm², and both use a Ring Bus interface with system-shared memory. The Iris Pro 5200's GT3e chip includes embedded DRAM (eDRAM) in its Haswell design, but the benchmark database does not list its die size or memory specifics beyond "System Shared."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results provide a stark contrast in performance direction. In geekbench_opencl, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins with 5042 against the P530's 4549, yielding a deltaPct of -9.8% from the P530's perspective. This means the P530 trails by nearly 10% in OpenCL, a significant gap that aligns with the Iris Pro 5200's 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the P530's 384.0 GFLOPS. The Iris Pro 5200's 320 shading units and 40 TMUs give it a parallel compute advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome.

In geekbench_vulkan, the tables turn completely. The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4571, while the Iris Pro 5200 manages only 3677, a deltaPct of 24.3% in favor of the P530. This 24.3% lead is more than double the OpenCL margin in the opposite direction, making the Vulkan test the deciding factor in the overall average. The P530's Vulkan 1.3 support and Generation 9.0 architecture clearly execute the modern API much more efficiently than the Iris Pro 5200's Vulkan 1.0 implementation. The Iris Pro 5200's higher raw compute does not translate to Vulkan performance, likely due to driver maturity and architectural differences in command processing.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the P530 averages 4560, while the Iris Pro 5200 averages 4360. The P530's average is 4.6% higher, entirely due to its Vulkan dominance. Interestingly, the P530's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 560 with an average score of 4569 (deltaPct -0.2%), while the Iris Pro 5200's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 with 4335 (deltaPct 0.6%). This puts the P530 on par with a discrete RX 560 in average terms, while the Iris Pro 5200 sits between the RTX 4070 GDDR6 and the GeForce 930M (4388).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a higher average benchmark score of 4560, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 4360, a difference of 4.6%.

Q: Why does the Iris Pro 5200 win the OpenCL test despite being older?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units and an FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS, both nearly double the P530's 192 shading units and 384.0 GFLOPS, giving it a raw compute advantage in OpenCL workloads.

Q: What explains the P530's large Vulkan lead?

A: The P530 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Iris Pro 5200 is limited to Vulkan 1.0, and the P530's newer Generation 9.0 architecture executes the API more efficiently, resulting in a 24.3% higher score.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in overall performance?

A: Yes, both sit at the 26th percentile among all GPUs, and their average scores differ by only 4.6%, though their strengths are diametrically opposed across OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: Which GPU consumes more power?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, which is three times higher than the Intel HD Graphics P530's 15 W TDP.

Q: Do both support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a lower feature level.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable specification. The P530 uses a 14 nm+ process node and has a die size of 123 mm², while the Iris Pro 5200 uses a 22 nm node with no listed die size. The P530's base clock is 350 MHz and boost clock is 1000 MHz, whereas the Iris Pro 5200 has a lower 200 MHz base but a higher 1150 MHz boost. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs, while the P530 has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This results in the Iris Pro 5200 having a pixel rate of 4.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, far exceeding the P530's 3.000 GPixel/s and 16.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 736.0 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro 5200 versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the P530, and the P530 has an FP16 rate of 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) while the Iris Pro 5200 has no listed FP16 value. The TDP is 15 W for the P530 and 45 W for the Iris Pro 5200. API support differs: the P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The release dates are 2015-08-31 for the P530 and 2013-06-02 for the Iris Pro 5200. Both use a Ring Bus interface, system-shared memory, and motherboard-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the better overall choice for modern graphics workloads. Its 24.3% Vulkan lead over the Iris Pro 5200 is the single largest performance gap in the comparison, and it achieves this while consuming only 15 W versus the Iris Pro 5200's 45 W. The P530's support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) makes it more future-proof for current software, and its higher average score of 4560 versus 4360 confirms its overall superiority. Users running Vulkan-based games or applications should select the P530 without hesitation.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 remains the pick for OpenCL compute tasks. Its 9.8% OpenCL advantage, driven by 320 shading units and 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, makes it a better fit for compute-heavy applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration. The higher 45 W TDP is a trade-off, but for users with a capable cooling solution and a workload that favors raw parallel compute, the Iris Pro 5200's performance justifies the power draw. Its Vulkan 1.0 limitation is a serious drawback for modern gaming, but for legacy compute pipelines, it is the stronger part. Ultimately, the choice is workload-dependent: the P530 for graphics and efficiency, the Iris Pro 5200 for OpenCL compute throughput.