Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Intel UHD Graphics 730 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Intel UHD Graphics 730 represent two distinct eras of Intel integrated graphics, yet benchmark results show they are surprisingly close competitors. The data reveals a split decision: the newer UHD 730 dominates in OpenCL compute workloads, while the older Iris Pro 6200 holds a narrow but clear lead in Vulkan performance. This creates an interesting dynamic where architectural age does not necessarily dictate overall superiority, and the choice between them depends heavily on the specific application and API in question.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data paints a clear picture of divergent strengths. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins decisively in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5988 against the Iris Pro 6200's 4556. This represents a 23.9% advantage for the newer part, a substantial margin that suggests the Rocket Lake architecture has significantly improved compute throughput for general-purpose GPU workloads. OpenCL performance is often critical for content creation, scientific computing, and other tasks that offload parallel processing to the GPU, making the UHD 730 the stronger choice for those use cases.

Conversely, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 6032, edging out the UHD 730's 5870. The 2.8% delta is modest but consistent. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API increasingly used in modern games and professional visualization tools. The Iris Pro 6200's advantage here, despite being from an older generation, indicates that its Broadwell GT3e configuration offers better raw graphics rendering efficiency in this specific API environment. For gaming or rendering workloads that leverage Vulkan, the older chip holds a small but measurable edge.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Iris Pro 6200 also has a higher average benchmark score of 6117, compared to the UHD 730's 5929. This overall average includes an additional Geekbench Metal score of 7764 for the Iris Pro 6200, a test the UHD 730 does not have data for. This Metal result inflates the older chip's average and suggests it has strong performance in Apple's ecosystem, where Metal is the primary graphics API. The UHD 730, lacking Metal support in the data, is inherently more limited in that specific environment.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip using the Generation 8.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process. In contrast, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is based on the Rocket Lake chip with the Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on a more refined 14 nm+++ process. The generation gap is significant, representing roughly seven years of architectural evolution, yet the performance outcomes are not as lopsided as the generational leap might suggest.

A critical difference lies in the execution unit configuration. The Iris Pro 6200 packs 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 render output units. The UHD 730, despite its newer architecture, has only 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the older chip has double the shading units and four times the texture units. However, the newer chip has more ROPs, which explains its higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s compared to the Iris Pro's 6.60 GPixel/s. The compute rates tell a similar story: the Iris Pro 6200 delivers 844.8 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 52.80 GTexel/s, while the UHD 730 manages 499.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 15.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also differ, with the UHD 730 having a higher boost clock of 1300 MHz versus the Iris Pro 6200's 1100 MHz, but both share the same 300 MHz base clock. The UHD 730 also supports FP16 compute at 998.4 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the Iris Pro 6200 lacks entirely. Both GPUs share the same 15 W TDP, use system-shared memory, and are integrated into the processor via a Ring Bus interface. The API support differs notably: the UHD 730 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Iris Pro 6200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a higher average benchmark score of 6117, compared to 5929 for the Intel UHD Graphics 730. This places the Iris Pro 6200 in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the UHD 730 sits in the 33rd percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is significantly faster in OpenCL, scoring 5988 versus the Iris Pro 6200's 4556. This gives the UHD 730 a 23.9% advantage in this compute workload.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the older Iris Pro 6200 wins?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro 6200 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 6032, beating the UHD 730's 5870 by 2.8%. It also has a strong Geekbench Metal score of 7764, a test for which the UHD 730 has no data.

Q: What are the key differences in execution unit counts?

A: The Iris Pro 6200 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. The UHD 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Iris Pro has more shading and texture units, while the UHD 730 has more ROPs.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: How do the boost clock speeds compare?

A: The UHD 730 has a higher boost clock of 1300 MHz, compared to the Iris Pro 6200's 1100 MHz. Both share the same 300 MHz base clock.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. The Iris Pro 6200 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip with a Generation 8.0 architecture on a 14 nm process, while the UHD 730 uses the Rocket Lake chip with a Generation 12.1 architecture on a 14 nm+++ process. The shading unit count is dramatically different: 384 for the Iris Pro versus 192 for the UHD 730. Texture mapping units also diverge, with 48 on the Iris Pro and 12 on the UHD 730. Render output units are closer, but still different: 6 versus 8.

Clock speeds show the UHD 730 boosting higher at 1300 MHz versus 1100 MHz, though the base clock is identical at 300 MHz. Pixel rate is higher on the UHD 730 at 10.40 GPixel/s, while the Iris Pro manages 6.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate is much higher on the Iris Pro at 52.80 GTexel/s versus the UHD 730's 15.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 844.8 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro and 499.2 GFLOPS for the UHD 730, but only the UHD 730 supports FP16 at 998.4 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. API support is more advanced on the UHD 730, which supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Iris Pro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking head-to-head result is in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5988 against the Iris Pro 6200's 4556. The 23.9% delta is the largest performance gap between the two in any shared benchmark. This substantial margin suggests that the newer Generation 12.1 architecture has made significant strides in general-purpose compute efficiency, despite having fewer shading units. The UHD 730 manages to achieve this higher score with half the shading units, indicating that architectural improvements in instruction scheduling, memory access, and parallel execution more than compensate for the raw unit count disadvantage.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story. Here, the Iris Pro 6200 wins with 6032 points, narrowly beating the UHD 730's 5870. The 2.8% delta is small, but it is a consistent victory for the older chip. This result is notable because Vulkan is designed to be a low-overhead API that can extract maximum performance from a GPU. The Iris Pro 6200's higher shading unit count and texture rate appear to give it an advantage in this rendering-oriented workload, where the extra 192 shading units and 36 additional TMUs can be fully utilized. The UHD 730's higher pixel rate and clock speed are not enough to overcome this deficit in Vulkan rendering tasks.

The average benchmark scores provide additional context. The Iris Pro 6200's average of 6117 includes a strong Metal score of 7764, which is its best performance across all tests. This suggests that the Broadwell architecture has excellent driver optimization for Metal, potentially making it a viable option for macOS-based systems that rely heavily on this API. The UHD 730's average of 5929 is derived solely from its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, with no Metal data available, which limits its applicability in Apple-centric workflows.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced conclusion rather than a clear winner. For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL-based applications, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the superior choice, offering a 23.9% performance advantage. This makes it better suited for tasks like video encoding, data processing, and other general-purpose GPU workloads that leverage OpenCL. Its newer architecture also brings support for more advanced API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, which may be important for compatibility with modern software.

However, for users focused on Vulkan-based rendering, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 holds a slight edge with its 2.8% higher score. Its significantly greater shading unit and texture unit counts provide raw rendering power that the newer chip cannot match in this specific API. Additionally, the Iris Pro 6200 has a higher average benchmark score overall, driven largely by its excellent Metal performance of 7764, making it the better option for systems that rely on Apple's graphics API.

The choice ultimately depends on the specific use case. The UHD 730 is the more balanced modern option with superior compute capabilities and broader API support, but the Iris Pro 6200 demonstrates that raw execution unit counts still matter for certain graphics workloads. The 2.8% Vulkan victory for the older chip is a reminder that architectural efficiency is not the only factor in GPU performance, and that the specific API and workload characteristics can overturn expectations. Neither GPU is a clear overall winner, and the data suggests that users should match the GPU to their primary application requirements rather than assume the newer generation is universally better.