Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 5042, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255. The Intel part leads by 18.5% in this test.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 records 3677 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 3413 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX110. That is a 7.7% advantage for the Intel integrated solution.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The database shows an average benchmark score of 4360 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and 3834 for the NVIDIA GeForce MX110. The Intel part sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA part sits at the 23rd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 boosts to 1006 MHz, whereas the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 boosts to 1150 MHz. Despite the lower clock, the MX110 trails in both recorded benchmark tests.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 uses a 22 nm process, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 uses a 28 nm process. The Intel chip also integrates 320 shading units versus 256 for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 delivers 8.048 GPixel/s, compared to 4.600 GPixel/s for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. This is one of the few specification areas where the MX110 is clearly ahead.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e die using Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process at Intel. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, drawing 45 W as part of the host CPU. Its memory configuration is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM; the bus width, memory type, and size are all listed as "System Shared," and bandwidth is "System Dependent." The chip packs 320 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs, with a base clock of 200 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0, and its display outputs are motherboard dependent.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110, in contrast, uses the GM108S chip with Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It is a discrete-class mobile GPU with a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface, a 30 W TDP, and no power connectors. It has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The MX110 features 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with base and boost clocks of 978 MHz and 1006 MHz respectively. Its memory is 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 40.10 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

The architectural gap is significant: the Iris Pro relies on shared system memory and a much higher boost clock, while the MX110 has dedicated VRAM and a lower clock but a wider ROP count. The MX110 also has a higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s) and a lower texture rate (16.10 GTexel/s) compared to the Intel part's 4.600 GPixel/s and 46.00 GTexel/s. The Intel chip leads in raw shader throughput, with 736.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 515.1 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 across both tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel part scores 5042 against 4255 for the MX110, a delta of 18.5%. That is a substantial margin for an integrated GPU facing a dedicated mobile chip. The Intel part's higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS) and texture rate (46.00 GTexel/s) likely explain much of this lead, as OpenCL workloads often stress shader and texture throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably. The Intel part scores 3677, while the MX110 scores 3413, a 7.7% difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the MX110's dedicated GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth may help it close the gap, despite its lower shader count and FP32 performance. Still, the Intel part wins outright, and the database records 2 wins for the Intel chip and 0 for the NVIDIA part in this head-to-head.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Intel part's 4360 average places it 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) and 1.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce 930M by 0.6% (4388) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M by 1.2% (4411). The MX110's 3834 average sits 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792), but trails the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics by 1.2% (3883) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 by 1.6% (3898). These rival comparisons show that the Iris Pro is competitive with entry-level discrete GPUs from its era, while the MX110 sits in a lower performance tier overall.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in raw benchmark performance: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200. It leads in both Geekbench OpenCL (18.5%) and Geekbench Vulkan (7.7%), and its average score of 4360 is 13.7% higher than the MX110's 3834. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (1150 MHz vs 1006 MHz), more shading units (320 vs 256), more TMUs (40 vs 16), and significantly higher FP32 throughput (736.0 GFLOPS vs 515.1 GFLOPS). In the recorded data, the Intel chip wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests.

However, the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is not without advantages. It has a higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s vs 4.600 GPixel/s), more ROPs (8 vs 4), and dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies entirely on system-shared memory. The MX110 also supports newer API versions: OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, compared to OpenGL 4.3 and Vulkan 1.0 for the Iris Pro. For users prioritizing modern API compatibility or pixel-heavy workloads, the MX110 may hold an edge in specific scenarios, despite its lower overall benchmark scores.

Who should pick which? From a pure performance standpoint, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is the stronger choice based on the database measurements. It outperforms the MX110 in every recorded benchmark and sits higher in the percentile ranking (26th vs 23rd). The MX110, however, offers dedicated memory and a more modern feature set, which could matter for applications that benefit from fast local VRAM or newer graphics API features. But the benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel part is the faster GPU in this comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Haswell GT3e | GM108S |

| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not listed | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 200 MHz | 978 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 1006 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 256 |

| TMUs | 40 | 16 |

| ROPs | 4 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.600 GPixel/s | 8.048 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.00 GTexel/s | 16.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 736.0 GFLOPS | 515.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 30 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2017-11-16 |