Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

The comparison between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M represents a classic clash between an integrated solution and a discrete mobile GPU. The data shows these two parts are far closer in performance than their different implementations might suggest, with the final outcome hinging on specific workloads and platform capabilities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a remarkably tight result. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934. This gives Intel a 2.2% advantage, a margin that is effectively negligible in real-world terms. The data indicates that in raw compute throughput, these two GPUs are nearly identical, despite their completely different architectures and market positions.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this picture of parity. The Iris Pro 5200 achieves an average score of 4360, while the GT 755M trails with 4033. This translates to a meaningful difference in the aggregate, suggesting that while the single OpenCL test shows a near tie, the Intel part may hold a slight edge in a broader range of compute tasks. However, context is crucial here.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Iris Pro 5200 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 755M is at the 24th. This means both are in the lower echelons of performance when compared against the entire GPU landscape, but they are still capable of handling modest workloads. The Intel part’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (0.6% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (0.6% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (1.2% slower). The GT 755M’s nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M4150 (0.5% faster), the Intel HD Graphics 630 (1% slower), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (1.4% faster). This positioning shows both GPUs are clustered within a tight performance band, where small percentage differences separate them from a wide range of competing parts.

The strongest conclusion from the head-to-head data is that the 2.2% delta in OpenCL is not a decisive victory for either side. It suggests that for purely compute-oriented tasks, users would be hard-pressed to notice a difference between the two. The average score gap of roughly 8% (4360 vs 4033) is more substantial, but it still places both firmly in the same performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, with a 2.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. This is a narrow margin, but it indicates that the Intel part can hold its own in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. Its 320 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, combined with a boost clock of 1150 MHz, produce a peak FP32 throughput of 736.0 GFLOPS. This is slightly lower than the NVIDIA part’s 783.4 GFLOPS, yet the Intel silicon still manages to come out ahead in the actual test. This suggests that the Iris Pro’s architecture is more efficient at translating raw theoretical throughput into real-world compute results.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, despite losing the benchmark, has its own advantages that are not captured by the compute test. Its 384 shading units and 16 ROPs give it a higher pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, compared to the Intel part’s 4.600 GPixel/s. This is a significant difference in fill-rate capabilities, which directly impacts rasterization-heavy tasks like traditional gaming at higher resolutions. The GT 755M also boasts a dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro relies on System Shared memory, making its bandwidth “System Dependent,” which is a massive handicap for memory-intensive workloads.

The win condition for the GT 755M is therefore in scenarios where dedicated memory bandwidth and high pixel fill rates are paramount. The Intel part wins in compute efficiency and power-constrained environments. The data shows a clear split: compute favors Intel, while traditional graphics rendering favors NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a higher average benchmark score of 4360, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M’s 4033. This places the Intel part at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 24th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, which is 2.2% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M’s score of 4934. This is the only direct benchmark between the two.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a fixed memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s from its 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has no dedicated memory; its bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent.”

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200’s 4.600 GPixel/s. This is due to the NVIDIA part’s 16 ROPs compared to Intel’s 4.

Q: What is the peak FP32 performance of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M achieves 783.4 GFLOPS, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 achieves 736.0 GFLOPS. Despite the NVIDIA part’s higher theoretical peak, the Intel part wins the actual OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M have a production status of “End-of-life.” They were released in June 2013, with Intel launching on June 2nd and NVIDIA on June 24th.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in their construction and memory architecture. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that relies on the system’s main memory. Its memory size, type, and bus width are all listed as “System Shared.” In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is a discrete MXM Module with its own dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a fixed bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The Intel part has a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a much higher base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz. However, the Intel part compensates with a higher texture fill rate of 46.00 GTexel/s, compared to the NVIDIA part’s 32.64 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part has a higher pixel rate at 8.160 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 4.600 GPixel/s.

The shading unit counts are close, with 320 for Intel and 384 for NVIDIA. However, the TMU counts differ significantly: Intel has 40, while NVIDIA has 32. ROP counts are dramatically different, with Intel at just 4 and NVIDIA at 16. The power envelope differs, with Intel rated at 45 W and NVIDIA at 50 W. The bus interface is also distinct, with Intel using a Ring Bus and NVIDIA using PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two is wide. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip, using Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip, based on the Kepler architecture, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This means the NVIDIA chip has a transistor count of 1,270 million on a die size of 118 mm², giving a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². Intel does not provide transistor or die size data in this pack.

The NVIDIA part has a clear advantage in memory architecture, with dedicated GDDR5, while Intel’s is system-dependent. In terms of API support, the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. This gives NVIDIA a more modern OpenGL and Vulkan implementation. The NVIDIA part also lists a predecessor (GeForce 600M) and successor (GeForce 800M), while Intel’s entry has no such lineage data.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two GPUs that are remarkably close in compute performance but diverge sharply in their design philosophies and strengths. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark and has the higher average score. It is the better choice for users who prioritize raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, likely in professional or scientific applications where the system’s CPU and shared memory are sufficient. Its lower 45 W TDP also makes it a more power-efficient option.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, while losing the compute test, is the superior choice for gaming and graphics-intensive tasks. Its 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and significantly higher pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s make it far more capable of handling texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions without stuttering. The 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth is a critical advantage that the Intel part simply cannot match with its system-dependent memory.

The verdict is clear: if the primary use case is compute and power efficiency, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the data-backed choice. If the use case is traditional 3D gaming or any workload that demands high memory bandwidth and pixel throughput, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the only logical pick. The 2.2% OpenCL delta is a footnote; the architectural differences are the story.