Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics parts. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, and it holds the higher overall average benchmark score. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M, by contrast, does not win any recorded comparison in the database.

Looking at the Geekbench OpenCL result, the Intel part scores 5042 against 3694 for the NVIDIA part. That is a 36.5% advantage for Intel, which is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload. The Intel part also appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 3677, a test the NVIDIA part has no recorded entry for. This gives Intel an additional edge in API coverage for the database's recorded measurements.

When viewed against all GPUs, the Intel part sits at the 26th percentile, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 22nd percentile. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 4360, while the NVIDIA part's average is 3694. The difference in percentile ranking, while modest, aligns with the average score gap.

For use-case splits, the data suggests Intel wins in OpenCL compute workloads, which often correlate with general-purpose GPU tasks, media processing, and some professional applications. The NVIDIA part has no recorded wins in any test category, so its strengths are not visible in the database. The Intel part also offers Vulkan support in the recorded data, with a score of 3677, while the NVIDIA part has no Vulkan benchmark entry. This means the Intel part is the only one of the two with any recorded Vulkan performance data.

The database shows exactly one head-to-head benchmark, and the Intel part wins it. There are no recorded tests where the NVIDIA part comes out ahead. For any user relying on the database's measurements, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the stronger performer in every measurable category.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and different architectural generations. The Intel part uses the Haswell GT3e chip, built on Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture. The NVIDIA part uses the GK208 chip, built on Kepler 2.0. These are fundamentally different designs with different strengths.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. Intel uses a 22 nm node at its own foundry. NVIDIA uses a 28 nm node at TSMC. The Intel part is built on the smaller process, which typically allows for higher density and potentially better power efficiency per unit of area, though the NVIDIA part has its own transistor budget.

The NVIDIA part has published transistor and die size data: 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.7 million transistors per mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel part has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz. The Intel part boosts to a higher maximum frequency, but starts from a much lower base. The NVIDIA part has a narrower clock range overall.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA part has dedicated memory: 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA part also lists a memory clock of 900 MHz, or 1800 Mbps effective. This means the NVIDIA part does not compete with the CPU for system memory bandwidth, while the Intel part relies entirely on the host system's memory configuration.

Shader resources also differ. The Intel part has 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has more shading units and more ROPs, while the Intel part has more TMUs. This combination yields different theoretical rates: the Intel part achieves 4.600 GPixel/s pixel rate and 46.00 GTexel/s texture rate, while the NVIDIA part achieves 7.528 GPixel/s pixel rate and 30.11 GTexel/s texture rate. The NVIDIA part has a higher pixel throughput, while the Intel part has a higher texture throughput.

API support differs in notable ways. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. NVIDIA has the higher OpenGL and Vulkan versions, while Intel has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

The bus interface also differs. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus, typical for integrated graphics. The NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, indicating it is a discrete solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two parts: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694. The Intel part wins by 36.5%.

This is not a marginal victory. A 36.5% delta in a compute benchmark is a decisive gap. OpenCL workloads that rely on the GPU's compute capabilities will see substantially better performance on the Intel part, according to the recorded data.

The Intel part's average benchmark score of 4360 also exceeds the NVIDIA part's average of 3694, a difference of 666 points, or roughly 18%. The Intel part's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 with an average score of 4335 (a 0.6% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388 (a -0.6% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M at 4411 (a -1.2% delta). This places the Intel part in a performance tier near those mobile and desktop parts.

The NVIDIA part's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M at 3717 (a -0.6% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M at 3718 (a -0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (a 1.2% delta). The NVIDIA part sits in a lower performance tier, roughly 15 to 20% below the Intel part's average score.

There are no recorded head-to-head results where the NVIDIA part wins. The database lists winsA as 1 and winsB as 0. Every measurable comparison favors the Intel part.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two parts, based solely on the recorded data:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Haswell GT3e versus GK208
• Architecture: Generation 7.5 versus Kepler 2.0
• Generation: HD Graphics (Haswell) versus GeForce 800M
• Process node: 22 nm versus 28 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Transistors: Not recorded versus 1,020 million
• Die size: Not recorded versus 87 mm²
• Transistor density: Not recorded versus 11.7M per mm²
• Base clock: 200 MHz versus 850 MHz
• Boost clock: 1150 MHz versus 941 MHz
• Memory clock: System shared versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory size: System shared versus 1024 MB
• Memory type: System shared versus DDR3
• Memory bus width: System shared versus 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System dependent versus 14.40 GB/s
• Shading units: 320 versus 384
• TMUs: 40 versus 32
• ROPs: 4 versus 8
• Pixel rate: 4.600 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 46.00 GTexel/s versus 30.11 GTexel/s
• FP32: 736.0 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS
• TDP: 45 W versus 33 W
• Bus interface: Ring Bus versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Power connectors: Not recorded versus None
• Display outputs: Motherboard dependent versus Portable device dependent
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• OpenGL: 4.3 versus 4.6
• Vulkan: 1.0 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2013-06-02 versus 2014-01-26
• Predecessor: Not recorded versus GeForce 700M
• Successor: Not recorded versus GeForce 900M
• Geekbench OpenCL score: 5042 versus 3694
• Geekbench Vulkan score: 3677 versus not recorded
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 26 versus 22
• Average benchmark score: 4360 versus 3694

The TDP difference is notable: the Intel part consumes 45 W, while the NVIDIA part consumes 33 W. This means the NVIDIA part is more power-efficient in terms of raw wattage, though the Intel part delivers higher compute performance per the recorded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4360, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has an average score of 3694.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel part scores 5042, and the NVIDIA part scores 3694. The Intel part leads by 36.5%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 825M have any recorded benchmark wins over the Intel part?

A: No. The database records winsA as 1 for Intel and winsB as 0 for NVIDIA. There are no recorded head-to-head wins for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which part has the higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s, compared to 4.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part.

Q: Which part supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA part supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.0.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the stronger performer for compute workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 36.5%, holds a higher average score (4360 versus 3694), and ranks in the 26th percentile versus the NVIDIA part's 22nd percentile. It also has a recorded Vulkan score of 3677, while the NVIDIA part has no Vulkan entry.

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M is not without its advantages. It has a higher pixel rate (7.528 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s), more ROPs (8 versus 4), and more shading units (384 versus 320). It also uses dedicated memory with a fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, which can be more predictable than system shared memory. Its TDP is lower at 33 W versus 45 W, and it supports newer OpenGL (4.6) and Vulkan (1.2.175) versions.

For a user prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Intel part is the clear choice from the database's measurements. For a user prioritizing pixel throughput, lower power draw, or newer graphics API versions, the NVIDIA part has specific strengths.

However, the overall benchmark picture favors Intel decisively. The 36.5% OpenCL lead is the single most significant recorded data point, and no recorded test shows the NVIDIA part ahead. The Intel part also sits closer to higher-performing rivals in the database, with deltas of only 0.6% to 1.5% against parts like the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 and the AMD FirePro W2100. The NVIDIA part's closest rivals, like the GeForce GT 740M and the Quadro 3000M, sit at similar scores, but they do not reach the Intel part's level.

The verdict: choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 for general compute and OpenCL performance, and choose the NVIDIA GeForce 825M only if pixel rate, power efficiency, or newer API support are the deciding factors. The database's recorded measurements do not show any scenario where the NVIDIA part wins a head-to-head test.