Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M split their two common benchmark tests almost perfectly, but the margins tell a starkly different story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel part wins decisively with a score of 5042 against the NVIDIA's 3580, a delta of 40.8% in Intel's favor. That is not a marginal victory; it is a commanding lead that places the Iris Pro comfortably ahead in compute-oriented workloads. However, the Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script entirely: the GT 745M scores 5502 versus Intel's 3677, a 33.2% advantage for NVIDIA. The Vulkan gap is slightly narrower than Intel's OpenCL lead, but it is still substantial.

What do these numbers mean in context? The Intel Iris Pro's OpenCL score of 5042 puts it within 0.6% of an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (which averages 4335) and 1.5% ahead of an AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388) by 0.6% and the GT 645M (4411) by 1.2%. The GT 745M's OpenCL result of 3580, by contrast, sits well below those rivals. In Vulkan, the GT 745M's 5502 is far beyond Intel's 3677, and the Intel part's 26th percentile ranking among all GPUs versus NVIDIA's 23rd percentile reflects how these two chips land in very different performance tiers depending on the API.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the split: the Iris Pro averages 4360 across all tests, while the GT 745M averages 3953. That is a 10.3% overall advantage for Intel, but the Vulkan win for NVIDIA shows that API-specific optimization can overcome raw average superiority. The data shows a genuine tug-of-war: Intel dominates in OpenCL compute, NVIDIA dominates in Vulkan graphics. Neither chip is a universal winner, and the choice depends entirely on which workload matters more.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip using Intel's 22 nm process, with a Generation 7.5 architecture that Intel classifies under HD Graphics (Haswell). The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M uses the GK107 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with a Kepler architecture from the GeForce 700M generation. The process node difference—22 nm versus 28 nm—gives Intel a theoretical density advantage, though the GT 745M's discrete-style design compensates with dedicated resources.

Memory architecture is where the divergence becomes stark. The Iris Pro uses system-shared memory, with a system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The GT 745M features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth and running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This dedicated memory is a major differentiator for the NVIDIA part, as it does not compete with the CPU for bandwidth. The Intel GPU's memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system's RAM configuration, making its bandwidth a moving target.

Compute resources also differ significantly. The Iris Pro packs 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and only 4 ROPs, yielding a pixel rate of 4.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 46.00 GTexel/s. The GT 745M counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing 4.392 GPixel/s and 17.57 GTexel/s. NVIDIA's higher ROP count suggests better fill-rate efficiency for certain pixel-heavy workloads, while Intel's much higher texture rate (46.00 versus 17.57 GTexel/s) points to a strong advantage in texture-bound scenarios. FP32 performance tells a similar story: Intel achieves 736.0 GFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 421.6 GFLOPS, a 74.6% lead for Intel in raw floating-point throughput.

API support also differs. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The GT 745M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. NVIDIA's newer OpenGL and Vulkan versions indicate better long-term driver maturity for modern APIs, which likely explains its Vulkan benchmark dominance. Both chips carry a 45 W TDP and are classified as IGP (integrated) solutions, though the GT 745M is typically mounted on mobile boards. The Iris Pro uses a Ring Bus interface, while the GT 745M uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in compute-heavy and texture-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 5042 versus 3580 for the GT 745M (40.8% higher) makes it the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications like video encoding, physics simulations, and general-purpose GPU compute. The 46.00 GTexel/s texture rate versus 17.57 GTexel/s for NVIDIA means texture-mapped workloads—common in certain game engines and image processing—will favor Intel. The 736.0 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 421.6 GFLOPS further cements this as a compute-first part. For users running OpenCL-based productivity tools, the Iris Pro's 26th percentile ranking (versus NVIDIA's 23rd) and its higher average benchmark score of 4360 (versus 3953) make it the safer bet.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M wins in Vulkan-based graphics and memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications. Its Vulkan score of 5502 versus 3677 (33.2% higher) shows clear superiority in modern graphics APIs, likely due to its Vulkan 1.2.175 support versus Intel's older Vulkan 1.0. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides consistent, predictable performance that system-shared memory cannot match. The 16 ROPs versus Intel's 4 ROPs also give NVIDIA a 3.6x advantage in raw pixel output potential, though the actual pixel rates are nearly identical (4.392 versus 4.600 GPixel/s) due to clock differences. For gaming or graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan, the GT 745M is the stronger option. The GT 745M's nearest rival in average score is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, deltaPct -0.1%), suggesting it sits in a crowded mid-range mobile GPU tier.

# Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight several key divergences beyond the obvious performance split. The manufacturing process differs: Intel uses 22 nm while NVIDIA uses 28 nm. The GT 745M has published transistor data—1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die with a density of 10.8M / mm²—while the Iris Pro's transistor count and die size are not listed. Clock behavior also differs: Intel lists a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz, while NVIDIA lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This makes direct clock-to-clock comparison impossible, but the benchmark results speak for themselves.

Memory configuration is the most consequential difference. Intel uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The Iris Pro's memory type is also listed as "System Shared," meaning it draws from the host's system RAM. The bus interface differs: Intel uses Ring Bus, NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for Intel and portable-device-dependent for NVIDIA, reflecting their typical deployment environments. Both support DirectX 12, but Intel's version is 12 (11_1) while NVIDIA's is 12 (11_0); Intel supports OpenGL 4.3 versus NVIDIA's 4.6; Intel supports Vulkan 1.0 versus NVIDIA's 1.2.175. The GT 745M also has a predecessor (GeForce 600M) and successor (GeForce 800M), while the Iris Pro lists none. Both are end-of-life products, with the GT 745M releasing on 2013-03-31 and the Iris Pro on 2013-06-02.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 averages 4360 across all tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M averages 3953. That is a 10.3% advantage for Intel.

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

A: The Iris Pro scores 5042 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3580 for the GT 745M, a 40.8% lead for Intel. This is Intel's largest single-test victory.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The GT 745M scores 5502 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 3677 for the Iris Pro, a 33.2% advantage for NVIDIA. The GT 745M's Vulkan 1.2.175 support likely contributes to this result.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Iris Pro uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the GT 745M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the core counts for each GPU?

A: The Iris Pro has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The GT 745M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Iris Pro achieves 4.600 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s for the GT 745M, a marginal Intel lead despite NVIDIA having 16 ROPs versus Intel's 4.

# The Verdict

The data does not support a single clear winner—it supports a workload-dependent split. For OpenCL compute, texture-heavy workloads, or any application that leverages FP32 throughput, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the superior choice. Its 40.8% OpenCL lead, 74.6% FP32 advantage, and 2.6x higher texture rate make it a compute workhorse. Its higher average benchmark score (4360 versus 3953) and better percentile ranking (26th versus 23rd) reinforce this.

For Vulkan-based gaming or modern API graphics, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M is the better pick. Its 33.2% Vulkan lead, dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 16 ROPs give it the edge in pixel-intensive and API-modern scenarios. The Vulkan 1.2.175 support versus Intel's Vulkan 1.0 is a practical advantage for future software compatibility.

Users should choose based on their primary applications. If the workload is OpenCL-accelerated productivity, scientific computing, or texture-bound rendering, the Iris Pro delivers more performance per watt (both are 45 W TDP) and higher raw throughput. If the workload involves Vulkan-native games or graphics pipelines, the GT 745M's dedicated memory and newer API support win out. The 1-1 win split in head-to-head benchmarks means there is no wrong answer—only a right answer for your specific use case. The GT 745M's nearest rival in average score is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, deltaPct -0.1%), placing it in a tight mid-range pack, while the Iris Pro's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, deltaPct 0.6%), an odd but telling comparison for a 2013 integrated GPU.