Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear sweep for the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K3100M scores 6154 against 5042 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, a margin of 22.1%. That is not a narrow win; it is a substantial lead that places the NVIDIA part firmly above its integrated rival in compute workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan test widens the gap even further, with the Quadro K3100M reaching 5484 while the Iris Pro manages only 3677, a delta of 49.1%. In short, the discrete mobile workstation GPU beats the Intel integrated solution by roughly one-fifth in OpenCL and by nearly half in Vulkan.

The wins are not merely numerical, they are structural. The Quadro K3100M wins 2 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Iris Pro wins none. Every recorded comparison favors NVIDIA. The OpenCL result is the closer of the two, but even that gap is large enough to be decisive in any mixed workload. The Vulkan result is overwhelming: a 49.1% advantage means the Quadro K3100M delivers nearly 1.5 times the score of the Iris Pro in that API. For users relying on Vulkan-based applications or game engines, the difference is not subtle.

It is worth noting what these scores represent in context. The Quadro K3100M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5154. The Iris Pro 5200 sits at the 26th percentile with an average score of 4360. The percentile gap, while modest, mirrors the raw score difference: the Quadro K3100M is positioned above the Iris Pro in the overall distribution. The average score of the Quadro K3100M, 5154, is 18.2% higher than the Iris Pro's 4360, a consistent pattern across both individual tests and aggregate metrics.

The nearest rivals for each GPU further illustrate the competitive landscape. The Quadro K3100M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, which averages 5161, a delta of -0.1%, meaning the Quadro K3100M is essentially tied with that card. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M averages 5211 (-1.1%), the GeForce GTX 760M averages 5236 (-1.6%), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 trails at 5063 (+1.8% for the Quadro). For the Iris Pro 5200, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335, a delta of 0.6%, a surprising but recorded comparison. The GeForce 930M averages 4388 (-0.6%), the GeForce GT 645M averages 4411 (-1.2%), and the AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295 (+1.5%). These rival deltas show that both GPUs are clustered with low-end discrete parts, but the Quadro K3100M's cluster sits consistently higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins with a score of 6154 against 5042 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, a 22.1% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The Quadro K3100M scores 5484 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Iris Pro scores 3677. The delta is 49.1%, making it the largest margin of either benchmark.

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

A: The Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5154, while the Iris Pro 5200 has an average of 4360.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro K3100M is at the 30th percentile, and the Iris Pro 5200 is at the 26th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro K3100M has a pixel rate of 11.30 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro 5200 has 4.600 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark. Users who need maximum compute throughput, particularly in Vulkan workloads, should choose the Quadro K3100M. Its 49.1% Vulkan lead and 22.1% OpenCL lead leave no room for doubt. The Iris Pro 5200 is not competitive in these tests, and no recorded metric favors it.

However, the Iris Pro 5200 is not without a role. Its 45 W TDP is lower than the Quadro K3100M's 75 W, and it is an IGP, meaning it requires no separate MXM module and has no power connectors. For systems where power draw and physical footprint are the priority, the Iris Pro may be the only viable option, despite the performance deficit. The Quadro K3100M, by contrast, is a discrete MXM module with a 256 bit memory bus and 4 GB of GDDR5, clearly aimed at mobile workstations that need sustained graphics performance.

The verdict, strictly from the data: the Quadro K3100M wins on raw performance, benchmark scores, and aggregate percentile ranking. The Iris Pro 5200 wins on power efficiency and integration simplicity. There is no recorded scenario where the Iris Pro outperforms the Quadro K3100M in compute benchmarks, so the choice depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes performance or power envelope.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The Quadro K3100M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Iris Pro 5200 uses a 22 nm process from Intel. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. These are stark differences, especially in ROP count, where the Quadro K3100M has eight times the ROPs of the Iris Pro.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses System Shared memory, with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. The clock speeds also differ: the Quadro K3100M runs at 706 MHz base and boost, while the Iris Pro runs at 200 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost.

Pixel rate favors the Quadro K3100M at 11.30 GPixel/s versus 4.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate is nearly identical, with the Quadro K3100M at 45.18 GTexel/s and the Iris Pro at 46.00 GTexel/s, a slight edge for Intel in this single metric. FP32 performance favors the Quadro K3100M at 1,084.4 GFLOPS versus 736.0 GFLOPS. The TDP differs: 75 W for NVIDIA, 45 W for Intel. Slot width is MXM Module for NVIDIA and IGP for Intel. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA and Ring Bus for Intel. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for NVIDIA and Motherboard Dependent for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is fundamental. The Quadro K3100M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation. The Iris Pro 5200 uses Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, with the Haswell GT3e chip, and belongs to the HD Graphics (Haswell) generation. The process node differs: 28 nm for NVIDIA, 22 nm for Intel.

The Quadro K3100M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Iris Pro 5200 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The memory architecture is also fundamentally different: the Quadro K3100M uses dedicated GDDR5, while the Iris Pro relies on System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent.

API support shows notable differences. The Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part has the higher OpenGL and Vulkan versions, while Intel's DirectX support is one minor version higher. The Quadro K3100M also has a predecessor and successor recorded: Quadro Fermi-M and Quadro Maxwell-M. The Iris Pro has neither recorded.

The release dates differ by roughly two months: the Iris Pro 5200 was released on June 2, 2013, and the Quadro K3100M on July 22, 2013. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro K3100M uses a boost clock identical to its base clock at 706 MHz, while the Iris Pro scales from 200 MHz to 1150 MHz, a much larger dynamic range.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins in every recorded benchmark category. It wins Geekbench OpenCL with 6154 versus 5042, a 22.1% margin. It wins Geekbench Vulkan with 5484 versus 3677, a 49.1% margin. It has a higher average benchmark score, 5154 versus 4360, and a higher percentile rank, 30th versus 26th. It also has higher pixel rate, higher FP32 throughput, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, a wider memory bus, and dedicated memory with higher bandwidth.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 wins in a narrower set of categories. It has a lower TDP at 45 W versus 75 W, which makes it more suitable for power-constrained systems. It has a higher texture rate at 46.00 GTexel/s versus 45.18 GTexel/s, a marginal advantage. It also has a higher boost clock at 1150 MHz versus 706 MHz, though the base clock is much lower at 200 MHz. Its DirectX support is slightly higher at 12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0).

In practical terms, the Quadro K3100M is the pick for compute-heavy workloads, Vulkan-based applications, and any task that benefits from dedicated GDDR5 memory and a 256 bit bus. The Iris Pro 5200 is the pick for low-power integrated systems where the GPU must share system memory and the chassis cannot accommodate a discrete MXM module. The data shows no scenario where the Iris Pro outperforms the Quadro K3100M in benchmarks, so the choice hinges entirely on form factor and power budget, not performance.