Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two integrated graphics solutions cleanly down the middle, with each taking one victory in the two measured workloads. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 dominates in OpenCL compute performance, scoring 5042 against the UHD Graphics 710's 3496, a lead of 44.2%. This is a substantial margin that reflects the Iris Pro's much larger shading engine and its Haswell-era design optimized for general-purpose GPU compute. If a workload relies heavily on OpenCL acceleration, such as certain content creation tasks or scientific simulations, the Iris Pro 5200 is the clear pick.

Conversely, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins the Vulkan API test, scoring 4088 versus 3677 for the Iris Pro, a delta of 10.1% in favor of the newer part. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead graphics API, and the UHD 710's Generation 12.2 architecture handles it more efficiently. This suggests that for contemporary gaming titles or applications that leverage Vulkan, the UHD 710 is the more capable option, despite its lower raw shader count.

Looking at overall average benchmark scores, the Iris Pro 5200 lands at 4360, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The UHD 710 averages 3792, sitting in the 22nd percentile. The Iris Pro is therefore the higher-performing part on aggregate, but the gap is not enormous. The data indicates a trade-off: the older chip wins on compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, while the newer chip wins on modern API performance. Neither part is a gaming powerhouse, but each has its niche.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is significant, spanning two major generations of Intel graphics technology. The Iris Pro 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip, built on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture and fabricated on a 22 nm process node. The UHD 710 uses an Alder Lake chip, representing Generation 12.2, manufactured on a 10 nm node. This generational leap explains many of the performance characteristics.

The Iris Pro 5200 is equipped with 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units. In contrast, the UHD 710 has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 2.5 times more shading units and 5 times more TMUs, which directly explains its much higher texture fill rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s for the UHD 710. However, the UHD 710 has double the ROP count, contributing to its higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s for the Iris Pro. This is a classic architectural split: more compute and texture units on the older chip, but more pixel-processing capacity on the newer one.

Clock speeds favor the UHD 710, with a base of 300 MHz and boost up to 1300 MHz, compared to the Iris Pro's 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. The newer process node allows for higher clocks despite the lower power envelope. The FP32 compute figures reflect the combined effects of shader count and clock speed: the Iris Pro delivers 736.0 GFLOPS, while the UHD 710 delivers 332.8 GFLOPS. The UHD 710 does support FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Iris Pro lacks entirely.

API support differences are notable. The UHD 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro 5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The newer part has more modern API support across the board, which explains its Vulkan benchmark win despite lower raw compute power. The UHD 710 also has a much lower TDP at 15 W versus 45 W for the Iris Pro, making it significantly more power-efficient for the performance it delivers.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict based on workload. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the better choice for OpenCL-heavy compute tasks. Its 44.2% lead in the geekbench_opencl test is decisive, and its 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 performance more than doubles the UHD 710's 332.8 GFLOPS. If the primary use case involves OpenCL acceleration, the Iris Pro is the superior part.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the better option for anyone prioritizing modern graphics API support and efficiency. Its 10.1% Vulkan lead shows it handles contemporary rendering workloads better. It also supports newer API versions: DirectX 12_1 versus 11_1, OpenGL 4.6 versus 4.3, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.0. The UHD 710 accomplishes this at a TDP of 15 W, one-third of the Iris Pro's 45 W. For a system builder looking at integrated graphics for general use, light gaming, or media playback, the UHD 710 is the more future-proof and power-efficient choice.

The aggregate benchmark scores favor the Iris Pro, with its 4360 average versus 3792 for the UHD 710. But those averages are heavily weighted by the OpenCL result. The Vulkan test shows the newer architecture's strength. The production status of both is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. The choice comes down to whether raw compute throughput or modern API efficiency matters more for the intended workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, compared to 3792 for the Intel UHD Graphics 710. The Iris Pro also sits in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 22nd percentile for the UHD 710.

Q: Is the Iris Pro 5200 faster in all benchmarks?

A: No. The Iris Pro 5200 wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 5042 versus 3496, a 44.2% lead. However, the UHD Graphics 710 wins the geekbench_vulkan test with 4088 versus 3677, a 10.1% margin.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 uses a Haswell GT3e chip on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture with a 22 nm process, 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The UHD 710 uses an Alder Lake chip on Generation 12.2 with a 10 nm process, 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The UHD 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro 5200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The UHD 710 has a TDP of 15 W, while the Iris Pro 5200 has a TDP of 45 W. The UHD 710 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: What are the clock speeds and compute rates?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 runs at a base of 200 MHz with a boost of 1150 MHz, delivering 736.0 GFLOPS FP32. The UHD 710 runs at a base of 300 MHz with a boost of 1300 MHz, delivering 332.8 GFLOPS FP32 and 665.6 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The geekbench_opencl test provides the largest single victory for either part. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 manages 3496. That is a delta of 44.2%, a massive performance gap in favor of the older Haswell chip. This result aligns with the hardware specifications: the Iris Pro has 320 shading units and 40 TMUs, compared to 128 shading units and 8 TMUs for the UHD 710. The Iris Pro's texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s for the UHD 710 further illustrates this compute advantage. For OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count and texture throughput, the Iris Pro is overwhelmingly faster.

The geekbench_vulkan test flips the script. Here the UHD 710 scores 4088, beating the Iris Pro's 3677 by 10.1%. This is a more modest margin than the OpenCL gap, but it is meaningful. The Vulkan API benefits from the UHD 710's modern Generation 12.2 architecture and its Vulkan 1.4 support, versus Vulkan 1.0 on the Iris Pro. The UHD 710's higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s, courtesy of its 8 ROPs, likely contributes to its better performance in this graphics-oriented test. The Iris Pro's 4 ROPs and 4.600 GPixel/s pixel rate hold it back in this workload.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database adds context. The Iris Pro 5200's average score of 4360 places it just 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6's 4335 and 1.5% above the AMD FirePro W2100's 4295. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce 930M by 0.6% and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M by 1.2%. The UHD 710's average of 3792 sits 0.8% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650's 3823 and 1.1% below the NVIDIA GeForce MX110's 3834. It leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M by 1.4% and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M by 2%. These comparisons show both parts are roughly in the same performance class as older discrete mobile GPUs, with the Iris Pro holding a slight edge overall.

Specification Differences

The two integrated GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The process node is a key divider: the Iris Pro 5200 uses a 22 nm process, while the UHD 710 uses a 10 nm process. This explains the UHD 710's ability to run at higher clocks despite lower power consumption. The Iris Pro's base clock is 200 MHz with a boost of 1150 MHz, while the UHD 710 runs at 300 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost.

Shading unit counts are dramatically different. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The UHD 710 has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This results in the Iris Pro having a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s for the UHD 710. The pixel rates are reversed: the UHD 710 achieves 10.40 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro manages 4.600 GPixel/s. FP32 compute is 736.0 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro and 332.8 GFLOPS for the UHD 710. The UHD 710 adds FP16 support at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1), which the Iris Pro lacks.

Power draw is another major difference. The Iris Pro 5200 has a TDP of 45 W, while the UHD 710 has a TDP of 15 W. Both use a Ring Bus interface and system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Both are motherboard-dependent for display outputs and use an IGP slot width. Neither has power connectors or a suggested PSU listed.

API support favors the newer part substantially. The UHD 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The release dates are also far apart: the Iris Pro launched on June 2, 2013, while the UHD 710 launched on January 3, 2022. Both are marked as end-of-life production status. The architecture generations are Generation 7.5 for the Iris Pro and Generation 12.2 for the UHD 710, reflecting the nearly nine-year gap between their introductions.