Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 830M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 leads with an average benchmark score of 4360, while the NVIDIA GeForce 830M trails at 3957. That is a gap of roughly 403 points, placing the Intel part in the 26th percentile of all GPUs versus the 830M's 24th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 16.6% higher than the GeForce 830M's 4324. This is the largest performance differential between the two across any benchmark in the data.

Q: Is the GeForce 830M competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: The data shows a much closer contest. The Intel part scores 3677 in Geekbench Vulkan, only 2.4% above the GeForce 830M's 3590. The NVIDIA GPU's Vulkan result is within striking distance of the Intel solution.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU according to the benchmark database?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 sits within 1.5% of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, +1.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (4411, -1.2%). The GeForce 830M is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, +0.1%).

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M achieves a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s, exactly double the Intel Iris Pro 5200's 4.600 GPixel/s. This indicates a significant advantage for the NVIDIA part in pixel-bound rendering scenarios.

Q: What is the transistor and die size situation for each chip?

A: The GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die (13.2M transistors per mm²). The Intel Iris Pro 5200's transistor count and die size are not specified in the data; only its 22 nm process node is provided.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split between these two GPUs is stark. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture on a 22 nm process node fabricated by Intel. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip, based on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The older Intel process node is smaller, but the NVIDIA chip benefits from a more recent design.

The Intel part integrates 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and only 4 ROPs. The GeForce 830M counters with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. While the Intel GPU has more shaders and TMUs, the NVIDIA GPU has twice the ROP count. This explains the divergent fill-rate characteristics: the GeForce 830M's pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s versus the Intel part's 4.600 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro 5200's texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s dwarfs the 830M's 18.40 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Intel Iris Pro 5200 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and bus width, meaning its memory performance is entirely contingent on the host platform's RAM. The GeForce 830M, by contrast, has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with a fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the NVIDIA chip runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the Intel solution's memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

Feature support shows a mixed picture. The Intel GPU supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA GPU supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. NVIDIA leads in OpenGL and Vulkan API versions, while Intel's DirectX support is marginally higher. Both are end-of-life products, but the Intel part launched on 2013-06-02, while the GeForce 830M arrived later on 2014-03-11. The GeForce 830M has a defined predecessor (GeForce 700M) and successor (GeForce 900M), while the Intel part lists none.

Power consumption differs notably: the Intel Iris Pro 5200 is rated at 45 W TDP, while the GeForce 830M draws 33 W. Both are IGP form factors, but the NVIDIA chip uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and has no power connectors, whereas the Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for Intel and portable-device-dependent for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, takes 2 wins to 0, and holds a higher average score (4360 vs 3957) and better percentile ranking (26th vs 24th). The OpenCL margin is substantial at 16.6%, and even in Vulkan, where the GeForce 830M comes closest, the Intel part still leads by 2.4%.

However, the GeForce 830M is not without merit. Its 8 ROPs deliver double the pixel rate (9.200 GPixel/s vs 4.600 GPixel/s), which could translate to better performance in certain rasterization-heavy workloads. The dedicated 2 GB VRAM with fixed bandwidth (14.40 GB/s) also provides more predictable memory performance than the Intel part's system-shared, system-dependent memory. Additionally, the 33 W TDP makes it more power-efficient than the Intel's 45 W.

For a buyer choosing purely on benchmark scores, the Intel Iris Pro 5200 is the stronger pick, especially for compute-oriented tasks measured by OpenCL. For scenarios where pixel throughput is paramount, or where a dedicated memory pool is required, the GeForce 830M has a defined role. The data does not support a universal recommendation for NVIDIA; it only shows a niche advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GeForce 830M |

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

| Chip | Haswell GT3e | GM108 |

| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not specified | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 200 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 256 |

| TMUs | 40 | 16 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.600 GPixel/s | 9.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.00 GTexel/s | 18.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 736.0 GFLOPS | 588.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Not specified | GeForce 900M |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the headline number. The Intel Iris Pro 5200 posts 5042, which is 16.6% higher than the GeForce 830M's 4324. This is a decisive margin, far larger than any difference seen in the nearest-rival comparisons. For context, the Iris Pro's closest rival in the database is the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388 (a mere 0.6% difference), meaning the Intel part's OpenCL performance is roughly 15% above that rival too. The GeForce 830M, meanwhile, sits within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977), showing it is competitive only with much older hardware in this test.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story. The Intel part scores 3677, while the GeForce 830M scores 3590. The 2.4% delta is small enough to be considered noise in real-world terms. The NVIDIA GPU's Vulkan support (version 1.4) is more modern than Intel's (version 1.0), yet the Intel hardware still manages to edge ahead. This suggests that the Iris Pro's higher shading-unit count (320 vs 256) and greater FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS vs 588.8 GFLOPS) compensate for its older API implementation.

Across both tests, the Intel part wins every time. The average benchmark score reinforces this: 4360 for Intel versus 3957 for NVIDIA, a 10.2% gap. The percentile ranks (26 vs 24) confirm that neither GPU is high-tier, but the Intel solution consistently outperforms its NVIDIA counterpart in the measured workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy applications. Its 320 shading units and 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput give it a raw computational advantage that shows clearly in Geekbench OpenCL (16.6% lead). The texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, backed by 40 TMUs, makes it well-suited for texel-heavy workloads such as certain game effects or image processing. For users running OpenCL-accelerated tasks, the Intel part is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA GeForce 830M wins in pixel-bound scenarios. Its 8 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s, exactly double the Intel part's 4.600 GPixel/s. This makes it better for fill-rate-limited operations like high-resolution rendering or heavy post-processing effects. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth also provides a stability advantage over the Intel's system-dependent memory, particularly on systems with slow or shared RAM. The 33 W TDP makes it the more power-efficient option, which could matter in thermally constrained laptops.

For Vulkan-specific workloads, the GeForce 830M's newer API support (Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.0) is a theoretical advantage, but the benchmark data shows the Intel part still wins by 2.4%. In practice, the GeForce 830M's best case is closing the gap in API-modern workloads, while the Intel part's best case is dominating in compute throughput. Users prioritizing raw compute should choose Intel; users prioritizing pixel fill and memory isolation should choose NVIDIA.