Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two integrated graphics solutions into distinct roles. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the more versatile part, with recorded scores in three separate tests: Geekbench Metal, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score sits at 6117, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark result, a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5712, which gives it an average score of 5712 and a 33rd percentile ranking.

In the only direct head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, the P6300 wins outright. It scores 5712 against the 6200's 4556, a delta of 20.2 percent in favor of the P6300. That single result defines the P6300's advantage: it is the stronger compute-oriented part in the one workload where both have recorded data.

The 6200, however, has a broader validation footprint. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 6032 show capability in modern graphics APIs, areas where the P6300 has no recorded results at all. For users running Metal or Vulkan workloads, the 6200 is the only one of the two with measured performance data, and its Metal result is particularly strong relative to its OpenCL showing.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The 6200 sits within 1.1 percent of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000, 0.7 percent of the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, 0.6 percent of the NVIDIA RTX A400, and 0.3 percent below the AMD Radeon HD 8690M. The P6300, meanwhile, is 0.1 percent below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, 0.3 percent below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, 0.4 percent above the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, and 1.9 percent above the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. The P6300's rival set skews toward older discrete mobile parts, while the 6200's rivals include a modern professional card and a current entry-level discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

Both parts share the same fundamental silicon. They are built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, use Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, and are fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process. Both are integrated graphics processors with a Ring Bus interface, and both carry a 15 W TDP. The core configuration is identical: 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 raster operation units. Memory is system shared for both, with a system dependent bandwidth figure.

The important divergence is in clock behavior. The 6200 runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 1100 MHz. The P6300 also starts at 300 MHz but only boosts to 800 MHz. That 300 MHz difference in boost clock has direct consequences for every throughput metric. The 6200 reaches 6.600 GPixel/s pixel rate, 52.80 GTexel/s texture rate, and 844.8 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. The P6300, with its lower ceiling, tops out at 4.800 GPixel/s, 38.40 GTexel/s, and 614.4 GFLOPS. In raw peak throughput, the 6200 is the faster chip on paper by a substantial margin.

The generation field shows a subtle distinction. The 6200 is listed as HD Graphics (Broadwell), while the P6300 is listed as HD Graphics-W (Broadwell). The W designation suggests a workstation-oriented variant within the same Broadwell family, though the core architecture and feature set remain the same.

Both parts expose identical API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for both, which is typical for integrated graphics. Neither part has a listed launch MSRP, and both are marked end-of-life with a release date of September 4, 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it runs counter to what the clock specifications alone would suggest. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P6300 scores 5712 against the 6200's 4556. That is a 20.2 percent advantage for the P6300, a decisive margin in a compute workload.

This result is notable because the 6200 has a much higher boost clock and correspondingly higher theoretical FP32 throughput. The 6200's 844.8 GFLOPS versus the P6300's 614.4 GFLOPS represents a 37.5 percent peak compute advantage on paper. Yet in the actual OpenCL measurement, the P6300 wins by 20.2 percent. The recorded data suggests that real-world compute performance depends on more than just peak clock rates and raw FLOP counts.

The 6200 compensates elsewhere. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 is the highest single benchmark result for either part, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 6032 is also strong. These results indicate that in API-specific workloads, particularly Metal, the 6200 is a much more capable part than its OpenCL deficit might imply. The average benchmark score of 6117 for the 6200 exceeds the P6300's 5712 average, despite the P6300's head-to-head win. That is because the 6200 has three recorded results, two of which are strong enough to lift its average above the P6300's single score.

The percentile rankings align with the averages. The 6200 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, two points above the P6300's 33rd percentile. Both are low-end parts by current database standards, but the 6200 has a slight edge in overall standing.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 wins the only head-to-head test. It scores 5712 versus the 6200's 4556, a 20.2 percent advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 have any benchmark results the P6300 lacks?

A: Yes. The 6200 has recorded Geekbench Metal and Geekbench Vulkan scores of 7764 and 6032 respectively. The P6300 has no recorded results in either test.

Q: How do the two compare in average benchmark score?

A: The 6200 averages 6117 across its three recorded tests, while the P6300 averages 5712 from its single OpenCL result. The 6200 is 405 points higher on average.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs in the database?

A: The 6200 sits at the 35th percentile, while the P6300 sits at the 33rd percentile.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same core configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 ROPs, and both use the Broadwell GT3e chip on a 14 nm process.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The 6200 boosts to 1100 MHz, while the P6300 boosts to 800 MHz. Base clocks are identical at 300 MHz.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share most of their specification sheet, but the differences that exist are significant for performance.

Clock speeds: The 6200 has a 300 MHz base clock and an 1100 MHz boost clock. The P6300 has the same 300 MHz base but only an 800 MHz boost clock.

Pixel rate: The 6200 reaches 6.600 GPixel/s, while the P6300 reaches 4.800 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: The 6200 achieves 52.80 GTexel/s, while the P6300 achieves 38.40 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute: The 6200 delivers 844.8 GFLOPS, while the P6300 delivers 614.4 GFLOPS.

Generation label: The 6200 is listed under HD Graphics (Broadwell), while the P6300 is listed under HD Graphics-W (Broadwell).

Benchmark coverage: The 6200 has three recorded benchmarks (Geekbench Metal, Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan), while the P6300 has only one (Geekbench OpenCL).

Average benchmark score: The 6200 averages 6117, versus 5712 for the P6300.

Percentile: The 6200 is at the 35th percentile, the P6300 at the 33rd.

Identical specifications include: 14 nm process, Broadwell GT3e chip, Generation 8.0 architecture, 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, 6 ROPs, 15 W TDP, Ring Bus interface, system shared memory, DirectX 12 (11_1) support, OpenGL 4.4 support, Vulkan 1.0 support, motherboard dependent display outputs, end-of-life production status, and a September 4, 2014 release date.

The Verdict

The choice between these two comes down to workload priority, and the data is clear on where each part stands.

Pick the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 if you care about API coverage and overall average performance. It is the only one of the two with recorded Metal and Vulkan results, and its Metal score of 7764 is far above its OpenCL result. Its average benchmark score of 6117 is higher, and it ranks two percentile points higher in the database. The 6200 also has the higher boost clock, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute on paper, which matters for peak throughput estimates.

Pick the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 if your workload is specifically OpenCL compute. In the one direct head-to-head test, the P6300 beats the 6200 by 20.2 percent. That is not a small margin, and it suggests the P6300's lower clocks are offset by other factors in real OpenCL execution. For users locked into OpenCL-based applications, the P6300 is the measured winner.

For everyone else, the 6200 is the safer recommendation. It has more validation data, a higher average score, a higher percentile ranking, and support for modern graphics APIs that the P6300 cannot demonstrate. The P6300's single win, while decisive, covers only one workload. The 6200's three results cover a broader range of use cases, and two of those results are strong enough to give it the overall edge. Both parts are end-of-life integrated graphics from 2014, so neither should be expected to handle demanding modern titles, but within their class, the 6200 is the more complete package.