AMD Radeon 610M vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a close contest between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and the AMD Radeon 610M, with each claiming one benchmark victory. The two benchmarks available for direct comparison are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the margins are narrow in both cases.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556, while the AMD Radeon 610M scores 4535. The Intel part wins by a delta of 0.5%, a margin so small that it falls within typical run-to-run variance. The average benchmark scores from the broader database place the Intel part at 6117, while the AMD part sits at 5444, a difference of roughly 12% in favor of Intel when considering the full set of recorded tests.

The Vulkan result flips the outcome. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353, versus 6032 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. That gives AMD a 5.1% advantage, a more meaningful gap than the OpenCL margin. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the AMD part's architectural approach appears to translate into a real performance edge in that workload.

Looking at the broader context, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 holds a 35th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while the AMD Radeon 610M sits at the 32nd percentile. Despite the lower percentile, the AMD part's Vulkan score is the single highest figure recorded for either product. The Intel part counters with a better OpenCL result and a higher average benchmark score across all tests.

The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at an average score of 6137 (0.3% above), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0.6% below), the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0.7% below), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (1.1% below). For the AMD Radeon 610M, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.4% above), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X at 5416 (0.5% below), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.7% above), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (1% above). These competitor comparisons show that both parts sit in a similar performance band, though the Intel part's average score aligns with slightly stronger company.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a clear split based on the API used. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in OpenCL, a compute-oriented API that has been widely used for general-purpose GPU workloads, including rendering, physics simulation, and some machine learning tasks. Its 4556 OpenCL score edges out the AMD part's 4535, and when combined with its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 (a test the AMD part does not have a recorded result for), the Intel part appears better suited for legacy compute and Apple-centric workloads. The Metal score, while not directly comparable, is the highest single benchmark result for the Intel part and suggests strong performance in that specific environment.

The AMD Radeon 610M wins decisively in Vulkan, which is the more relevant API for modern gaming and real-time graphics. A 5.1% lead in Vulkan over the Intel part indicates that the AMD architecture handles draw calls and command buffers more efficiently. This makes the AMD part the better choice for users running contemporary games or applications that leverage Vulkan's low-overhead design. The AMD part also has a higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for Intel), which supports its advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The Intel part, however, has a much higher texture rate: 52.80 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s for AMD. This 3.5x advantage in texture throughput suggests that the Intel part excels in texture-heavy workloads, such as older games or applications that rely heavily on anisotropic filtering and mipmapping. The Intel part also has more shading units (384 versus 128) and more texture mapping units (48 versus 8), which explains its higher FP32 throughput of 844.8 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the AMD part.

Where the AMD part wins is in feature support and modern API compliance. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Intel part is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part also includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Intel part. For users who prioritize forward-looking features or plan to use ray tracing, the AMD part is the only choice between these two.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The AMD Radeon 610M, in contrast, uses the Mendocino chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 6 nm, with the smaller node allowing for higher clock speeds and better efficiency.

The clock speeds reflect this. The Intel part runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The AMD part runs at a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. That is a 400 MHz higher base clock and an 800 MHz higher boost clock for AMD. Higher clocks typically translate directly into performance, especially in scenarios that are not limited by memory bandwidth or texture units.

The memory subsystems are both system shared, with no dedicated VRAM. The bus width is also system shared, and bandwidth is system dependent. This means both parts rely on the host system's memory, and their performance can vary based on the platform's memory configuration. Neither part has a fixed memory size, type, or bus width that differentiates them.

The shading unit count is vastly different. The Intel part has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The AMD part has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the AMD part achieves a higher pixel rate (7.600 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s) thanks to its higher clock speed. The Intel part, however, has a much higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s) because of the sheer number of TMUs.

The FP32 performance tells the story of raw compute. The Intel part delivers 844.8 GFLOPS, while the AMD part delivers 486.4 GFLOPS. The AMD part does offer FP16 performance at 972.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the Intel part lacks entirely. This makes the AMD part more capable in workloads that can use half-precision math, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or modern graphics effects.

The bus interface differs as well. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus, while the AMD part uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The PCIe interface allows the AMD part to communicate with the host system through a standard expansion bus, which may offer lower latency in some scenarios. The Intel part's Ring Bus is a proprietary interconnect designed for its integrated graphics placement.

API support is another major divergence. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The AMD part also has 2 ray tracing cores, a feature that the Intel part does not offer. The display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel and portable device dependent for AMD, reflecting their target platforms.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced conclusion. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads, particularly those that use OpenCL or Metal. Its higher shading unit count, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 throughput make it more capable in raw compute and texture-bound scenarios. The recorded average benchmark score of 6117 versus 5444 confirms that the Intel part holds a general performance advantage across all recorded tests.

The AMD Radeon 610M is the better choice for modern graphics APIs, specifically Vulkan. Its 5.1% lead in the Vulkan benchmark, combined with support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing cores, makes it the more future-proof option. The higher clock speeds (1500 MHz base, 1900 MHz boost) and the smaller 6 nm process node indicate a more modern design that is better optimized for contemporary software.

Users who run legacy applications, rely on OpenCL compute, or work in environments where Metal is prevalent should lean toward the Intel part. Users who play modern games, use Vulkan-based engines, or want access to ray tracing should choose the AMD part. The AMD part's higher pixel rate also gives it an edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios, which are common in real-time rendering.

Neither part is a clear winner overall. The Intel part wins on average benchmark score and compute throughput, while the AMD part wins on modern API support and Vulkan performance. The choice ultimately depends on the software environment and the specific workloads that matter most to the user.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117, compared to 5444 for the AMD Radeon 610M.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M scores 6353 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6032. AMD leads by 5.1%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The AMD Radeon 610M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s.

Q: What DirectX versions do the two GPUs support?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | AMD Radeon 610M |

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

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 100 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Shading Units | 384 | 128 |

| TMUs | 48 | 8 |

| ROPs | 6 | 4 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 2 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2022-09-19 |

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

| Predecessor | Not recorded | Vega II IGP |

| Successor | Not recorded | Navi III IGP |