Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 records an average benchmark score of 4360, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3717. That puts the Intel part roughly 17% ahead in the database's aggregate measurements.

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

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 3974 for the GT 740M. That is a 26.9% advantage for the Intel solution, the largest single-test gap in this comparison.

Q: Is the GT 740M closer in any workload?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan the gap narrows considerably. Intel scores 3677 and NVIDIA scores 3459, a delta of only 6.3%. The Vulkan result suggests the two are much more evenly matched when using that API.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the overall percentile ranking?

A: The Iris Pro 5200 lands at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 740M sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are below the median, but the Intel part ranks slightly higher in the database.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: For the Iris Pro 5200, the closest competitors include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (0.6% higher average score), the GeForce 930M (0.6% lower), and the GeForce GT 645M (1.2% lower). For the GT 740M, the closest is the Quadro 3000M (0% difference), with the GeForce 825M 0.6% higher and the GeForce GT 635M 0.6% lower.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Intel part was released on June 2, 2013, and the NVIDIA part followed on June 19, 2013.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins both recorded benchmarks, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 26.9% margin and the Vulkan test with a 6.3% margin. The data indicates a consistent, though not overwhelming, advantage for Intel across the board. The largest win is in OpenCL, where the integrated Iris Pro solution leverages its higher shading unit count and faster boost clock to pull well ahead of the discrete NVIDIA chip.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M does not win either test, but its Vulkan score comes within 6.3% of Intel's result. That narrower gap suggests that in Vulkan-based workloads, the GT 740M is a more viable alternative than the OpenCL numbers imply. The GT 740M also benefits from having 8 ROPs versus Intel's 4, which could matter in fill-rate-bound scenarios, though no benchmark in the database directly tests that. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the Iris Pro 5200 is the clear pick; for Vulkan-centric applications, the difference is smaller but still favors Intel.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It integrates 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The GPU operates with a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. Its memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, with the bus width, type, and size all listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth marked as "System Dependent." The chip uses a Ring Bus interface and carries a TDP of 45 W. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, in contrast, is built on the GK208 chip with Kepler 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The base clock is 980 MHz with a boost of 1033 MHz. Memory is a dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a discrete MXM module with no power connectors, drawing 33 W. It uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The transistor count is 1,020 million on an 87 mm² die, giving a density of 11.7M transistors per mm².

The architectural split is stark: Intel relies on a large integrated GPU with shared memory and a high boost clock, while NVIDIA uses a smaller discrete chip with dedicated VRAM and more ROPs but fewer TMUs. The 22 nm Intel process node gives it a density advantage, but the NVIDIA part counters with a higher base clock and lower power draw. The Iris Pro's 40 TMUs outnumber the GT 740M's 32, which helps texture throughput despite the Intel part having fewer shading units overall (320 vs. 384).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 22 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA, and the foundries differ (Intel vs. TSMC). The Iris Pro has no listed transistor count or die size, while the GT 740M reports 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. Clock speeds diverge significantly: Intel runs at 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost, whereas NVIDIA runs at 980 MHz base and 1033 MHz boost. The memory configuration is also fundamentally different: Intel uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

The shading unit counts are 320 for Intel and 384 for NVIDIA, but Intel has more TMUs (40 vs. 32) and fewer ROPs (4 vs. 8). Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 8.264 GPixel/s versus Intel's 4.600 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors Intel at 46.00 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA's 33.06 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is close, with NVIDIA at 793.3 GFLOPS and Intel at 736.0 GFLOPS. TDP differs by 12 W (45 W for Intel, 33 W for NVIDIA). The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for Intel and portable-device-dependent for NVIDIA. API support shows NVIDIA with newer OpenGL (4.6 vs. 4.3) and Vulkan (1.2.175 vs. 1.0), while Intel claims DirectX 12 (11_1) against NVIDIA's 12 (11_0). Release dates are nearly identical, with Intel two weeks earlier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins both. The first, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a decisive 26.9% victory for Intel. The score of 5042 versus 3974 reflects the Iris Pro's higher texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) and larger TMU count, which likely helps in compute workloads that exercise texture sampling. The Intel part also boosts to 1150 MHz, which is 117 MHz higher than NVIDIA's boost clock, offsetting the GT 740M's advantage in shading units and FP32 throughput.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, is much closer. Intel scores 3677 against NVIDIA's 3459, a 6.3% margin. The narrower gap suggests that in Vulkan, which tends to favor lower-level driver efficiency, the GT 740M's dedicated memory and higher ROP count help close the distance. NVIDIA's newer Vulkan support (1.2.175 vs. 1.0) may also contribute to the smaller delta. Still, the Intel part maintains the lead, consistent with its overall higher average score of 4360 versus 3717.

The most striking interpretation of these numbers is that Intel's integrated solution, despite relying on system-shared memory and a much lower base clock, manages to beat a discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM in both API tests. The texture rate advantage (46.00 vs. 33.06 GTexel/s) appears to be the deciding factor in OpenCL, while the Vulkan result shows NVIDIA's strengths in fill rate and memory bandwidth only partially compensate. The win count is 2 for Intel and 0 for NVIDIA, with no benchmark in the database where the GT 740M takes the lead.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 as the stronger performer in this pairing. It wins both recorded benchmarks, holds a 26.9% advantage in OpenCL and a 6.3% edge in Vulkan, and sits at a higher percentile (26th vs. 22nd) with a higher average score (4360 vs. 3717). For users running OpenCL workloads, the choice is unambiguous: the Iris Pro delivers substantially better compute performance despite being an integrated part. Its 40 TMUs and 46.00 GTexel/s texture rate give it a throughput advantage that the GT 740M cannot match, even with its higher shading unit count and FP32 output.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M is not without merit, however. Its Vulkan score comes within 6.3% of Intel's, and its 8 ROPs provide double the pixel rate (8.264 GPixel/s vs. 4.600 GPixel/s), which could benefit rasterization-heavy tasks that the database does not directly benchmark. It also draws less power (33 W vs. 45 W) and offers dedicated 2 GB VRAM with a fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, which may provide more consistent performance in memory-constrained scenarios. Users who prioritize Vulkan compatibility or need a discrete module with lower power consumption might prefer the GT 740M, but the recorded benchmark data gives no instance where it outperforms the Iris Pro.

The database's nearest rival comparisons reinforce this hierarchy. The Iris Pro's closest rival, the RTX 4070 GDDR6, is only 0.6% higher in average score, while the GT 740M's closest rival, the Quadro 3000M, is exactly tied. This suggests the Iris Pro operates in a slightly higher performance tier. Given the 2-0 win record and the consistent margins, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the recommended pick for users who can accommodate its 45 W TDP and system-shared memory. The GT 740M remains a reasonable choice for those needing a low-power discrete GPU with dedicated VRAM, but the recorded data shows it trailing in every measured test.