GPU Comparison
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
GeForce GT 645M
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M
FAQ
Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?
A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M has an average benchmark score of 4411, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 4360. The delta is only 1.2%, placing both at the 26th percentile of all GPUs.
Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL?
A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins decisively, scoring 5042 versus the GT 645M's 2680. This represents a 46.8% advantage for Intel in OpenCL compute workloads.
Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?
A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M takes the Vulkan test with a score of 4875, compared to Intel's 3677. NVIDIA leads by 32.6% in this API.
Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?
A: The GT 645M uses 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent.
Q: What is the process node difference between the two?
A: The GT 645M is built on TSMC's 28 nm process with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The Iris Pro 5200 uses Intel's 22 nm process; transistor count and die size are not specified.
Q: Which GPU has higher peak FP32 throughput?
A: The Iris Pro 5200 leads with 736.0 GFLOPS, while the GT 645M delivers 599.0 GFLOPS. Intel's advantage comes despite having fewer shading units (320 vs 384).
Architecture Differences
The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 1,270 million transistors across 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses the Haswell GT3e die with Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel's fabs. While transistor count and die size are not listed for the Intel part, the process node difference is clear.
The core configurations differ in structure. The GT 645M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. This creates an interesting split: NVIDIA has more shaders and ROPs, while Intel has more TMUs. The pixel rate reflects this, with NVIDIA at 6.240 GPixel/s versus Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate flips the comparison, with Intel's 46.00 GTexel/s nearly doubling NVIDIA's 24.96 GTexel/s.
Clock behavior also differs substantially. The GT 645M runs at a 709 MHz base clock with an 780 MHz boost, while the Iris Pro 5200 starts at a low 200 MHz base and boosts to 1150 MHz. Memory handling is another major distinction: NVIDIA employs 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, whereas Intel relies entirely on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.
API support shows generational differences. NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Intel supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The bus interface also differs: NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while Intel uses a Ring Bus architecture. Power consumption is listed at 32 W for NVIDIA and 45 W for Intel, despite both being integrated-style parts (IGP slot width).
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The two shared benchmark tests reveal a split decision. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 dominates with a score of 5042 against NVIDIA's 2680. This is a 46.8% margin, indicating that Intel's architecture is significantly stronger in general-purpose compute workloads exposed through OpenCL. The Intel part achieves this despite having fewer shading units, suggesting better utilization of its 320 shaders and higher boost clock.
The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M scores 4875, while the Iris Pro 5200 manages only 3677. NVIDIA leads by 32.6% in this API. This substantial margin suggests that NVIDIA's Kepler architecture handles Vulkan's explicit graphics and compute model more efficiently, or that driver maturity for Vulkan favors the NVIDIA part. The GT 645M's dedicated memory may also play a role in reducing latency for Vulkan workloads.
Looking at the broader picture, the average benchmark scores are remarkably close: 4411 for NVIDIA versus 4360 for Intel, a 1.2% gap. The nearestRivals data confirms this parity. The GT 645M is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce 930M (4388), 1.2% ahead of the Iris Pro 5200, and 1.8% ahead of the RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335), while trailing the Radeon R7 M260 (4499) by 1.9%. From Intel's perspective, the Iris Pro 5200 is 0.6% ahead of the RTX 4070 GDDR6, 0.6% behind the GeForce 930M, 1.2% behind the GT 645M, and 1.5% ahead of the FirePro W2100 (4295). These delta percentages indicate that all these GPUs are clustered within a narrow performance band.
The head-to-head data shows one win for each GPU, with the GT 645M taking Vulkan and the Iris Pro 5200 taking OpenCL. However, the magnitudes differ: Intel's OpenCL win is 46.8%, while NVIDIA's Vulkan win is 32.6%. This means Intel's strongest result is more lopsided than NVIDIA's, but NVIDIA's average remains slightly higher due to its Vulkan performance being stronger relative to the competition.
The Verdict
The data presents a nuanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M holds a marginal overall advantage with an average score of 4411 versus 4360 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. This 1.2% difference is small enough that real-world performance would likely be indistinguishable in many tasks, but the benchmark results consistently place NVIDIA slightly ahead on average.
For users prioritizing OpenCL compute workloads, the Iris Pro 5200 is the clear choice. Its 46.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial and suggests strong performance in applications that leverage this API for general-purpose GPU computing. The Intel part's higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS versus 599.0 GFLOPS) supports this advantage.
For users prioritizing Vulkan graphics and compute, the GT 645M is the better option. Its 32.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan indicates that NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, combined with its dedicated memory subsystem, handles this modern API more effectively. The GT 645M's higher pixel rate (6.240 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s) also suggests better rasterization performance.
Given the close average scores and the split benchmark results, neither GPU can be declared an outright winner. The choice depends entirely on the intended workload. Both are end-of-life products, so the decision is relevant only for legacy systems or budget-conscious builds using existing hardware.
Specification Differences
The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. Process node: NVIDIA uses 28 nm at TSMC, Intel uses 22 nm at Intel. Transistor count: 1,270 million for NVIDIA, not specified for Intel. Die size: 118 mm² for NVIDIA, not specified for Intel. Transistor density: 10.8M per mm² for NVIDIA, not specified for Intel.
Clock speeds: NVIDIA runs at 709 MHz base and 780 MHz boost; Intel runs at 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost. Memory: NVIDIA has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth; Intel uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.
Core configuration: NVIDIA has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; Intel has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Pixel rate: NVIDIA at 6.240 GPixel/s versus Intel at 4.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate: NVIDIA at 24.96 GTexel/s versus Intel at 46.00 GTexel/s. FP32: NVIDIA at 599.0 GFLOPS versus Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS.
TDP: NVIDIA at 32 W, Intel at 45 W. Bus interface: NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16, Intel uses Ring Bus. Display outputs: portable device dependent for NVIDIA, motherboard dependent for Intel. API support: NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.175; Intel supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, Vulkan 1.0. Release dates: NVIDIA on September 30, 2012; Intel on June 2, 2013.
Where Each One Wins
The NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M wins in scenarios that benefit from its dedicated memory and higher ROP count. Its 6.240 GPixel/s pixel rate and 16 ROPs suggest better fill-rate-bound performance, which matters for traditional rasterization at higher resolutions. The 32.6% Vulkan advantage indicates that Vulkan-based games and applications run noticeably better on this GPU. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent memory performance that does not compete with the CPU for system bandwidth.
The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy workloads that use OpenCL. Its 46.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the single largest performance gap in either direction. The higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS) and faster texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) support this strength. The 40 TMUs are particularly useful for texture-heavy compute tasks. The higher boost clock of 1150 MHz, while starting from a low 200 MHz base, allows the Intel part to scale up significantly under load.
For users running older DirectX 11-era games, both GPUs are viable since both support DirectX 12 (11_0 for NVIDIA, 11_1 for Intel). However, NVIDIA's higher pixel rate likely provides smoother frame rates in games that are fill-rate limited. For users running OpenCL-accelerated productivity applications, the Iris Pro 5200's compute advantage is compelling. For users running Vulkan-based titles, the GT 645M is the stronger choice.
The system-dependent memory on the Intel part means its performance can vary based on the host system's RAM speed and architecture. The GT 645M's dedicated memory provides more predictable performance. Conversely, the Intel part's Ring Bus interface integrates directly with the CPU, potentially reducing latency for certain workloads. Both GPUs sit at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are entry-level performers in the current landscape.