Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 or the NVIDIA GeForce 840M?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 leads with an average benchmark score of 6117, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M trails with an average score of 5322, placing it in the 31st percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the GeForce 840M's strongest benchmark?

A: In the GeForce 840M's strongest benchmark, geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA GPU scores 5764 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556, giving the NVIDIA part a 21% lead in that specific test.

Q: What is the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's strongest benchmark result?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6032 in geekbench_vulkan, which is its highest recorded benchmark score and a 23.6% advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce 840M in the same test.

Q: Are the two GPUs close in overall performance?

A: No, the database shows a meaningful gap. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's average score of 6117 is roughly 15% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 5322, despite the NVIDIA part winning one of the two shared benchmarks.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has the higher pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 achieves 6.600 GPixel/s.

Q: What API versions does each GPU support?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, using the Broadwell GT3e chip manufactured on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 28 nm, which affects transistor density and power characteristics.

The Intel part integrates 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also has 384 shading units but only 16 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs. This means the Intel GPU has three times the texture mapping units of the NVIDIA GPU, while the NVIDIA GPU has a slightly higher ROP count. The texture rate reflects this: the Intel part reaches 52.80 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part manages 17.98 GTexel/s. The pixel rate favors the NVIDIA part, 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part's memory clock is also listed as system shared, while the NVIDIA part runs its memory at 1001 MHz, or 2 Gbps effective.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a fully specified transistor count of 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. Power consumption differs notably: the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a 33 W TDP. Both are classified as IGP slot width, but the NVIDIA part uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the Intel part uses a Ring Bus.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has a clear lineage, with the GeForce 700M as its predecessor and the GeForce 900M as its successor. The Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database. Both GPUs are marked as end-of-life production status. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 was released on September 4, 2014, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M was released earlier, on March 11, 2014.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 as the stronger overall GPU. Its average benchmark score of 6117 versus 5322 for the NVIDIA GeForce 840M represents a clear performance gap, and its 35th percentile ranking versus the NVIDIA part's 31st percentile confirms that the Intel part sits higher in the overall distribution of all GPUs.

The Intel part's advantages in texture rate are decisive for certain workloads. With 48 texture mapping units versus 16, and a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, the Intel GPU is positioned for tasks that stress texture processing. Its Vulkan performance is also superior, with a 23.6% lead in geekbench_vulkan.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M has its own strengths. It wins the OpenCL benchmark by 21%, has a higher pixel rate, and offers dedicated memory with a known bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s, whereas the Intel part relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part also supports newer API versions in OpenGL and Vulkan, which may matter for software compatibility.

Users who prioritize OpenCL compute workloads, dedicated memory, and lower power draw from the GPU's own specifications might prefer the NVIDIA GeForce 840M. Users who prioritize overall average performance, texture throughput, Vulkan performance, and a more power-efficient 15 W TDP should choose the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. The benchmark data gives the Intel part the overall edge, but the choice depends on the specific workload mix.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |

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

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | GM108S |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 16.02 GB/s |

| Texture Mapping Units | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 6 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 844.8 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-04 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Not recorded | GeForce 900M |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6117 | 5322 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 35 | 31 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share exactly two recorded benchmarks: geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan. Each GPU wins one of these tests, and the margins are substantial in both directions.

In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5764 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556. This is a 21% lead for the NVIDIA part, the largest single-test advantage recorded for either GPU. The Intel part's OpenCL result of 4556 is its lowest benchmark score in the database, suggesting that OpenCL workloads are not its strength.

In geekbench_vulkan, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 reverses the outcome with a score of 6032 against the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 4880. This is a 23.6% lead for the Intel part, slightly larger than the NVIDIA part's OpenCL margin. Notably, the Intel part's Vulkan score of 6032 is higher than the NVIDIA part's OpenCL score of 5764, meaning the Intel GPU's best result beats the NVIDIA GPU's best result.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the Intel part's overall advantage. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6117, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M averages 5322. The nearest rival to the Intel part is the AMD Radeon HD 8690M with an average score of 6137, a delta of -0.3%, meaning the two are nearly tied. The NVIDIA GeForce 840M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M445 with an average score of 5358, a delta of -0.7%. The Intel part's nearest rivals cluster tightly around it, with the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077, while the NVIDIA part's rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 930A at 5317 and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M at 5284.

The FP32 compute figures are very close: 844.8 GFLOPS for the Intel part versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a difference of roughly 2%. This near-parity in raw compute makes the benchmark differences more striking, since they must come from other factors such as memory subsystem, driver optimization, or architecture efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in overall average performance. Its score of 6117 is 15% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 5322, and it holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs. The Intel part also wins decisively in Vulkan, with a 23.6% lead, and in texture throughput, with 52.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. Its 48 texture mapping units versus 16 give it a structural advantage in texture-heavy workloads. The 15 W TDP, less than half of the NVIDIA part's 33 W, makes it the more power-efficient option according to the recorded specifications.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins in OpenCL, with a 21% lead over the Intel part. It also has a higher pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and more ROPs at 8 versus 6, which can benefit fill-rate bound operations. The NVIDIA part's dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth provides a known, fixed memory performance profile, whereas the Intel part's system shared memory bandwidth is simply listed as system dependent. The NVIDIA part also supports newer API versions for OpenGL (4.6 vs 4.4) and Vulkan (1.4 vs 1.0), which may matter for applications that require those versions. Its FP32 output of 863.2 GFLOPS is marginally higher than the Intel part's 844.8 GFLOPS.

For users whose workloads are dominated by Vulkan, texture processing, or power efficiency, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. For users who rely on OpenCL compute, need a dedicated memory pool, or require the newer OpenGL and Vulkan API versions, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M has clear advantages. The benchmark data shows one win each in the head-to-head tests, but the Intel part's higher average score and higher percentile ranking give it the overall edge in the database's summary metrics.