AMD FirePro W4190M vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Comparison

The benchmark data places the AMD FirePro W4190M and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in the same performance percentile (26th), but their scores tell very different stories depending on the workload. The Intel part takes the only direct head-to-head comparison, yet the AMD card offers a distinct set of architectural traits that matter for specific use cases in a mobile workstation context. The data indicates a narrow overall win for Intel in raw compute, but the choice is not straightforward.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the sole head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5042 against the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505. That is a 10.7% advantage for Intel, a decisive margin in a single compute workload. This makes the Iris Pro the clear pick for general OpenCL compute tasks, where its higher shading unit clock speed and texture throughput translate into a tangible lead.

The AMD FirePro W4190M does not win any benchmark in the data, but its profile suggests a different kind of strength. It carries a 128-bit GDDR5 memory interface with a fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies on System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent. In scenarios where dedicated memory bandwidth is critical—such as sustained rendering or texture-heavy workloads—the AMD card’s architecture provides a more predictable foundation, even if the measured compute score lags.

The Intel part also holds a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3677, which the AMD card does not have. This indicates Intel has a functional Vulkan path in its driver stack, while the AMD card’s API support lists Vulkan 1.2.170 but lacks a corresponding benchmark result. For users targeting Vulkan-based applications, the Intel part has proven performance, not just theoretical support.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 950 million transistors packed into a 77 mm² die. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture on a 22 nm process at Intel, with transistor count and die size not listed in the data. This process difference is significant: Intel’s 22 nm node is denser, allowing for a more power-efficient design, though the exact transistor density for Intel is unavailable.

Core counts diverge sharply. AMD fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). Intel counters with 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. This creates an interesting split: AMD has more shader cores and double the ROPs, while Intel has nearly double the TMUs. The texture rate reflects this—Intel posts 46.00 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 21.60 GTexel/s, a 113% advantage for Intel in texture fill. Conversely, AMD’s pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s beats Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s by 56.5%, a direct result of having twice the ROPs.

Clock behavior is another differentiator. The AMD card runs at a base of 825 MHz with a boost to 900 MHz, while the Intel part starts much lower at 200 MHz but boosts to 1150 MHz. The Intel chip’s high boost clock drives its FP32 output to 736.0 GFLOPS, slightly ahead of AMD’s 691.2 GFLOPS. Memory configurations are fundamentally opposed: AMD uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while Intel uses System Shared memory with a System Dependent bus width and bandwidth. This means AMD’s memory performance is fixed and consistent, while Intel’s varies with the host system’s memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 against the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505. The delta is -10.7% from AMD’s perspective, meaning Intel is ahead by roughly a tenth. This is a substantial margin for a single compute test, and it aligns with Intel’s higher FP32 throughput and texture rate. The AMD card’s lower score suggests its GCN 1.0 architecture, despite having more shading units, cannot overcome the clock speed and texture advantages of the Intel design in this particular workload.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505 score places it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499) and 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). It is also 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 1.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). These tight margins show the W4190M sits in a crowded mid-low segment, where single-digit percentage differences separate competitors.

The Intel Iris Pro’s average benchmark score, which includes both OpenCL and Vulkan results, is 4360. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (0.6% behind Intel) and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388 (0.6% ahead). The AMD FirePro W2100 trails at 4295, placing Intel 1.5% ahead. The presence of an RTX 4070 in this list is notable, but the data does not explain why; the scores are what they are. Intel’s OpenCL result of 5042 is its strongest, while its Vulkan result of 3677 drags the average down.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs diverge:

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4190M | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 950 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | Not listed |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | 200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 320 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 4.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 46.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 736.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 45 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-11 | 2013-06-02 |

Shared traits include DirectX 12 (11_1) support, end-of-life production status, and no launch MSRP. The AMD card is an MXM module with no power connectors, while the Intel part is an integrated GPU (IGP) on a ring bus, making it dependent on the motherboard for display output.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.7% higher than the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Iris Pro uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do the ROP counts compare?

A: The AMD card has 8 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s. The Intel part has 4 ROPs, yielding 4.600 GPixel/s, a 56.5% advantage for AMD.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture rate?

A: The Intel Iris Pro has 40 TMUs and a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, more than double the AMD card’s 24 TMUs and 21.60 GTexel/s.

Q: Does the AMD card have a Vulkan benchmark result?

A: No. The AMD FirePro W4190M lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support but has no Geekbench Vulkan score. The Intel part has a Vulkan score of 3677.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M was released on 2015-11-11, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 was released on 2013-06-02.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 as the stronger compute performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 10.7% margin, has a higher FP32 output (736.0 GFLOPS vs 691.2 GFLOPS), and delivers more than double the texture rate. Its Vulkan result of 3677 also demonstrates a working path for that API, something the AMD card lacks in measured results. For any user prioritizing raw OpenCL compute or texture-heavy workloads, the Intel part is the data-backed choice.

The AMD FirePro W4190M is not without merit. It has twice the ROPs, leading to a 56.5% higher pixel rate, and its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth offers consistency that the Intel part’s System Shared memory cannot guarantee. In rasterization-heavy tasks or environments where memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, the AMD card’s architecture could prove more reliable. Its GCN 1.0 architecture also supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and OpenGL 4.6, both newer versions than Intel’s Vulkan 1.0 and OpenGL 4.3.

The release dates matter here. The AMD card came out in 2015, over two years after the Intel part’s 2013 launch. Despite being newer, the AMD card still trails in the compute benchmark, suggesting its design priorities were different—likely favoring sustained mobile workstation reliability over peak compute. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has a launch MSRP, so pricing is not a factor in this analysis. The final call: pick the Intel Iris Pro for compute and texture performance, pick the AMD FirePro for pixel throughput and dedicated memory stability. The benchmark results show Intel wins the compute crown, but AMD’s ROP advantage keeps it relevant for specific tasks.