Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M across both available comparison tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 points against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 5,042 points, a 230.1% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; the NVIDIA part delivers more than three times the raw compute throughput in this workload.

The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro M3000M posts 16,668 points, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 manages only 3,677 points. The delta here reaches 353.3%, meaning the discrete GPU outperforms the integrated solution by a factor of roughly 4.5. For context, the Quadro M3000M's Vulkan score is nearly identical to its OpenCL result, suggesting consistent performance across different API environments.

The head-to-head tally reflects this dominance: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins 2 out of 2 comparisons, with zero wins for the Intel part. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story — the Quadro M3000M averages 4,621 points across all recorded tests, while the Iris Pro 5200 averages 4,360 points. Although the average gap is smaller (roughly 6%), the individual workload differences are substantial, indicating that the Intel part's average is buoyed by tests where the two are closer, while the OpenCL and Vulkan tests reveal a wide gulf.

Looking at the percentile rankings, both GPUs sit near the bottom of the overall distribution. The Quadro M3000M lands in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro 5200 sits just below at the 26th percentile. This proximity in percentile ranking might suggest parity, but the head-to-head data contradicts that impression — the Quadro's wins are decisive, and its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M (average score 4,628, a 0.1% difference) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (average 4,657, a 0.8% difference). The Intel part's nearest rivals include the GeForce 930M (average 4,388, a 0.6% difference) and the GeForce GT 645M (average 4,411, a 1.2% difference), placing it in a lower performance tier despite the similar percentile.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, by contrast, employs the Haswell GT3e chip under Intel's Generation 7.5 architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel's own fabs. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro M3000M carries 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The Iris Pro 5200 has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and just 4 ROPs. That 4-ROP count is a severe constraint for fill-rate-bound workloads. The pixel rate for the Quadro M3000M is 29.57 GPixel/s against the Intel part's 4.600 GPixel/s — a 6.4x difference. Texture rate is closer but still lopsided: 59.14 GTexel/s versus 46.00 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 relies entirely on system shared memory, with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. This means the Intel part's performance scales with the host system's memory configuration, while the NVIDIA part has a fixed, dedicated pool.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Quadro M3000M runs at an 823 MHz base clock with a 924 MHz boost, while its memory operates at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro 5200 has a 200 MHz base clock but boosts to 1150 MHz — a higher peak frequency than the NVIDIA part's boost. However, the Intel part's lower shader count and ROP count negate that clock advantage in most scenarios. The FP32 throughput is 1.892 TFLOPS for the Quadro M3000M versus 736.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part.

API support also differs. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part is newer in every API generation, which aligns with its later release date of August 2015 versus June 2013 for the Intel part.

Power and form factor tell a story of different design intents. The Quadro M3000M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot with no power connectors. The Iris Pro 5200 draws 45 W and is an IGP on a ring bus interface. The Quadro's display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the Intel part's are motherboard dependent.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively with a score of 16,646 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200's 5,042, a 230.1% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 versus 3,677 for the Iris Pro 5200, representing a 353.3% difference — the largest margin in any recorded test.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 5200 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Iris Pro 5200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) — a lower feature level despite both being DirectX 12.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro M3000M averages 4,621 points across all recorded benchmarks, while the Iris Pro 5200 averages 4,360 points. The Quadro is approximately 6% higher on average.

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 boosts to 1150 MHz, which is higher than the Quadro M3000M's 924 MHz boost. However, the Quadro's larger shader count and memory bandwidth overcome this clock disadvantage.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | Haswell GT3e |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Generation 7.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | Not specified |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | 200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 320 |

| TMUs | 64 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 4 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 4.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 46.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.892 TFLOPS | 736.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.0 |

| Release Date | August 2015 | June 2013 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

# The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior performer in every recorded head-to-head test. The 230.1% OpenCL advantage and 353.3% Vulkan advantage are not subtle margins — they represent fundamentally different performance classes. The Quadro's dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the Intel part's system-shared memory is the likely root cause of this disparity, compounded by the Quadro's 3.2x shading unit count and 8x ROP count.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is not without merit. Its 45 W TDP is 30 W lower than the Quadro's 75 W, making it more suitable for power-constrained designs. Its 1150 MHz boost clock exceeds the Quadro's 924 MHz boost, and its 22 nm process node is more advanced than the 28 nm node used by NVIDIA. For systems where the CPU's integrated graphics suffice and dedicated GPU space is unavailable, the Iris Pro 5200 offers a functional baseline.

The percentile rankings — 27th for the Quadro and 26th for the Intel part — suggest that both sit near the bottom of the modern GPU landscape. Neither is a high-performance part by contemporary standards. Yet within this pairing, the Quadro M3000M is clearly the pick for anyone needing discrete graphics performance, while the Iris Pro 5200 is an integrated solution with a lower power draw and no additional hardware requirements.

# Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro M3000M: The discrete GPU wins every recorded benchmark. Its dedicated memory subsystem provides consistent bandwidth regardless of host system configuration, which is critical for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The 1024 shading units and 32 ROPs make it far more capable in compute-heavy and fill-rate-bound scenarios. The 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than double the Intel part's 736.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro also supports newer API versions — DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 versus 4.3, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.0 — making it more future-proof for software that leverages these features. Its MXM module form factor and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface indicate it is designed for upgradeable, performance-oriented mobile workstations.

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200: The integrated GPU wins on power efficiency and integration simplicity. At 45 W, it consumes 40% less power than the Quadro's 75 W. It requires no dedicated memory, no separate module slot, and no power connectors — its ring bus interface ties directly into the host CPU. The 1150 MHz boost clock is notably higher than the Quadro's 924 MHz, and the 22 nm process node is two generations ahead of the 28 nm node used by NVIDIA. For systems that need basic graphics acceleration without the space, power, or thermal budget for a discrete GPU, the Iris Pro 5200 is the only viable option in this comparison. Its system-shared memory means it can adapt to whatever RAM the host provides, though this also means its performance is hostage to the system's memory bandwidth.