Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics solutions. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX takes one benchmark win, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 takes the other, resulting in a 1-1 tie in the head-to-head comparison.

The Intel part wins in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5042 against the NVIDIA's 4939. That is a 2% advantage for Intel, a narrow margin that suggests the Iris Pro part has a slight edge in general-purpose compute workloads measured through OpenCL. This is notable because the Intel chip is an integrated graphics processor, while the NVIDIA part is a discrete mobile GPU.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins decisively in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 4749 versus 3677 for the Intel Iris Pro. That is a 29.2% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This is a substantial gap, indicating that in Vulkan-based workloads, the discrete NVIDIA solution holds a commanding lead over the integrated Intel part.

Looking at the broader database context, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX sits at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4844. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 sits at the 26th percentile, with an average score of 4360. The percentile figures show both parts are positioned in the lower-mid range of the GPU landscape, but NVIDIA holds a modest overall advantage in average score.

The use-case split is therefore clear: if the workload relies on Vulkan, the NVIDIA part is the stronger choice by a wide margin. If the workload relies on OpenCL, the Intel part is slightly ahead, though the margin is small enough that real-world differences could vary.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e chip, part of Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 22 nm process.

The transistor counts differ sharply. NVIDIA packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for the Iris Pro part, so no direct density comparison is possible from the data.

Clock behavior is fundamentally different. The NVIDIA GPU runs at a base clock of 795 MHz with a boost clock of 861 MHz, using dedicated GDDR5 memory. The Intel part has a base clock of just 200 MHz but boosts to 1150 MHz, which is higher than NVIDIA's boost. However, Intel's memory is system shared, meaning bandwidth is "System Dependent" rather than a fixed figure.

The core configurations also diverge. NVIDIA has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Intel has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. This explains the different pixel and texture rates: NVIDIA achieves 6.888 GPixel/s and 27.55 GTexel/s, while Intel achieves 4.600 GPixel/s and 46.00 GTexel/s. Intel's higher TMU count gives it a texture rate advantage despite fewer shading units.

API support differs as well. NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part has newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions, which aligns with its strong Vulkan benchmark showing.

Power consumption is another clear separator. NVIDIA's TDP is 23 W, while Intel's is 45 W. The Intel part consumes nearly double the power, which is notable for an integrated solution. The NVIDIA GPU uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors, while Intel uses an IGP slot and relies on the Ring Bus interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has an average benchmark score of 4844, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 averages 4360. NVIDIA sits at the 28th percentile among all GPUs, Intel at the 26th.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: NVIDIA wins decisively with a score of 4749 against Intel's 3677, a delta of 29.2% in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: Does the Intel part win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 5042 versus 4939 for the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, a margin of 2%.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: NVIDIA uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: NVIDIA has 512 shading units, while Intel has 320. However, Intel has more texture mapping units: 40 versus 32 for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has a TDP of 23 W, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a TDP of 45 W.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every specification category. The process node separates them: NVIDIA uses 28 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 22 nm from Intel. Transistor count is 1,870 million for NVIDIA, with Intel's count not recorded. Die size is 148 mm² for NVIDIA, with Intel's not recorded.

Clock speeds show a different strategy. NVIDIA runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. Intel runs at 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while Intel uses system shared memory.

Memory capacity is fixed at 2 GB for NVIDIA, using GDDR5 type on a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. Intel's memory is entirely system shared, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent.

The core counts differ: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for NVIDIA versus 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs for Intel. Pixel rates are 6.888 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 4.600 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rates are 27.55 GTexel/s for NVIDIA and 46.00 GTexel/s for Intel. FP32 performance is 881.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 736.0 GFLOPS for Intel.

TDP is 23 W for NVIDIA and 45 W for Intel. The slot width is MXM Module for NVIDIA and IGP for Intel. NVIDIA has no power connectors, while Intel's field is null. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for NVIDIA and Ring Bus for Intel. Display outputs are portable device dependent for NVIDIA and motherboard dependent for Intel.

API support differs: NVIDIA has DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel has DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. Release dates are June 27, 2016 for NVIDIA and June 2, 2013 for Intel. NVIDIA's production status is end-of-life, as is Intel's.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 ahead with 5042 points versus 4939 for the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The delta is 2%, which is a narrow lead. In practical terms, this means the Intel part delivers slightly better raw compute throughput in OpenCL, despite being an integrated solution with fewer shading units. The higher boost clock of 1150 MHz and the greater TMU count likely contribute to this result.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a completely different story. NVIDIA scores 4749 against Intel's 3677, a delta of 29.2%. This is the largest margin in either direction across the two tests. The NVIDIA part's Vulkan 1.4 support versus Intel's Vulkan 1.0 likely explains part of the gap, as newer API versions can better utilize hardware features. The discrete memory configuration with dedicated GDDR5 also gives NVIDIA an advantage in memory-bound workloads.

Comparing the average scores provides additional context. NVIDIA's average of 4844 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M, which averages 4855, and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB, which averages 4791. Intel's average of 4360 sits 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 930M at 4388 and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M at 4411. These rival comparisons show both parts operating in similar performance territory, though NVIDIA's overall average is higher by roughly 11%.

The data shows a clear pattern: NVIDIA wins where modern graphics APIs are used, Intel wins in the older OpenCL path. The 29.2% Vulkan margin is the standout figure, indicating that for gaming or compute workloads leveraging Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is substantially faster.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward conclusion. Users who prioritize Vulkan-based workloads should choose the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. The 29.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive, and the newer API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.0) reinforces this advantage. The NVIDIA part also offers dedicated GDDR5 memory, which is preferable for consistent performance across applications.

Users who work primarily with OpenCL-based applications might prefer the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, which holds a 2% edge in that specific test. However, the margin is small, and the Intel part consumes 45 W, nearly double the 23 W of the NVIDIA part. For a mobile device, the lower power draw of the NVIDIA GPU could be a meaningful factor.

The overall average benchmark score favors NVIDIA: 4844 versus 4360, a difference of roughly 11%. The percentile rankings also favor NVIDIA, at the 28th percentile versus the 26th for Intel. Both are end-of-life products, so the choice is not about future support but about current workload needs.

For gaming or any Vulkan-accelerated content, the data strongly recommends the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. For legacy OpenCL compute tasks, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is marginally better, but the trade-off in power consumption and the much larger Vulkan deficit make it hard to recommend as a general-purpose choice. The recorded data shows NVIDIA as the more balanced performer, with one strong win and one narrow loss, while Intel has one narrow win and one significant loss.