Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and NVIDIA GeForce 930A are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they approach the task from opposite directions. The Intel part is an integrated GPU riding on a 14 nm Broadwell processor, while the NVIDIA part is a discrete-class chip on 28 nm Maxwell silicon. The database shows a single head-to-head OpenCL result, but the surrounding benchmark averages and architectural records reveal a clear split in capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins the only direct benchmark comparison recorded. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 930A scores 5317 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s 4556, a 14.3% deficit for the Intel part. This is the sole head-to-head datapoint, and it favors NVIDIA in raw compute throughput.

However, the Intel part holds a broader benchmark profile. The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has three recorded scores: Geekbench Metal at 7764, Geekbench Vulkan at 6032, and Geekbench OpenCL at 4556. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 6117. The GeForce 930A only has the single OpenCL result, so its average is identical to that one score, 5317. This means the Intel GPU’s average is 15.0% higher than the NVIDIA part’s average, purely because the Intel chip participates in more API tests and scores well in them.

The wins split by workload type. If the task is OpenCL compute, the GeForce 930A is ahead. If the task is Vulkan or Metal, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has recorded scores that the NVIDIA part cannot match, because no Vulkan or Metal results exist for the 930A in the database. The Intel GPU’s percentile rank is 35 versus the NVIDIA part’s 31, indicating that across all GPUs in the database, the Intel chip sits slightly higher in the distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different fabs and process nodes. Intel uses a 14 nm process from its own foundry, while NVIDIA uses TSMC’s 28 nm process. The Intel chip, Broadwell GT3e, is built on Generation 8.0 architecture with 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 raster output pipelines. The NVIDIA chip, GM108, uses Maxwell architecture with 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. Both have the same shading unit count, but the Intel part has double the TMUs, while the NVIDIA part has more ROPs.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel GPU runs at a base of 300 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU runs at 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, a much narrower range and a higher floor. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 7.528 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 6.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors Intel at 52.80 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA’s 22.58 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors Intel at 844.8 GFLOPS versus NVIDIA’s 722.7 GFLOPS.

Memory is a major divergence. The Intel part uses system shared memory, with size, type, and bus width all listed as “System Shared” and bandwidth as “System Dependent.” The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. This dedicated pool gives the 930A consistent memory performance, while the Intel GPU depends entirely on the host system’s RAM configuration.

Power draw also separates them. The Intel IGP has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA part draws 33 W. The NVIDIA chip uses no power connectors and is listed as an IGP form factor, but its power envelope is more than double the Intel part. The bus interface differs as well: Intel uses a Ring Bus, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Transistor details exist only for the NVIDIA chip: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2M per mm². No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part. API support differs: Intel offers DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0, while NVIDIA offers DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part also has a listed predecessor, GeForce 800A, while the Intel part has none recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice based on workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce 930A is the stronger option, as its 5317 score beats the Intel’s 4556 by 14.3%. This is the only direct comparison, and it is decisive in that specific API.

For systems that rely on Vulkan or Metal, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has recorded scores of 6032 and 7764 respectively, while the GeForce 930A has no such results in the database. If an application uses those APIs, the Intel part is the only one with demonstrated performance. Its average benchmark score of 6117 also exceeds the NVIDIA’s 5317 average, suggesting that across a wider test suite, the Intel chip holds up better.

The NVIDIA part offers dedicated memory with 2 GB and 16.02 GB/s bandwidth, which matters for consistency and for workloads that do not tolerate shared memory contention. The Intel part consumes less power at 15 W versus 33 W, a significant difference for battery-driven devices. The Intel chip also has double the texture units and higher texture rate, which can benefit certain texture-bound scenes.

There is no single winner across all metrics. The GeForce 930A wins the OpenCL benchmark and offers dedicated memory. The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins on average score, has higher FP32, higher texture rate, supports newer Vulkan and OpenGL versions, and draws half the power. The choice depends on which API and which constraint matters more.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A has an average of 5317.

Q: In the direct OpenCL comparison, what is the exact score difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317, and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556, a 14.3% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 930A have any Vulkan or Metal benchmark results?

A: No, the database only records a Geekbench OpenCL score for the GeForce 930A. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores of 7764 and 6032.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W.

Q: Which GPU has more texture units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 48 texture units, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A has 24.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins with 5317 points against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200’s 4556 points. The delta percentage is 14.3%, meaning the NVIDIA part is 14.3% faster in this specific test. This is a clear win for NVIDIA in raw OpenCL compute.

Outside that single test, the Intel part has two additional benchmarks that the NVIDIA part does not have. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel part scores 6032. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 7764. The NVIDIA part has no corresponding scores, so no direct comparison is possible for those APIs. The Intel part’s average score of 6117 is 15.0% higher than the NVIDIA’s 5317.

The Intel part also leads in FP32 compute, with 844.8 GFLOPS versus NVIDIA’s 722.7 GFLOPS, a 16.9% advantage. Texture rate is an even larger gap: Intel’s 52.80 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA’s 22.58 GTexel/s, a 133.8% advantage for Intel (the actual ratio is 2.34 times). Pixel rate goes the other way: NVIDIA’s 7.528 GPixel/s versus Intel’s 6.600 GPixel/s, a 14.1% advantage for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds explain some of this. The Intel part boosts to 1100 MHz, while the NVIDIA part runs at a 941 MHz boost. The Intel part’s higher boost clock, combined with double the texture units, drives its texture rate lead. The NVIDIA part’s higher base clock (928 MHz versus 300 MHz) and 8 ROPs versus 6 ROPs contribute to its pixel rate win.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 14 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The foundry is Intel versus TSMC. The architecture is Generation 8.0 versus Maxwell. The chip names are Broadwell GT3e versus GM108.

Shading units are identical at 384, but TMUs differ at 48 versus 24, and ROPs differ at 6 versus 8. Base clocks are 300 MHz versus 928 MHz, and boost clocks are 1100 MHz versus 941 MHz. Pixel rates are 6.600 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 52.80 GTexel/s versus 22.58 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 844.8 GFLOPS versus 722.7 GFLOPS.

Memory configuration is entirely different: system shared versus 2 GB DDR3, system shared bus width versus 64 bit, system dependent bandwidth versus 16.02 GB/s. TDP is 15 W versus 33 W. The bus interface is Ring Bus versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are motherboard dependent versus portable device dependent.

API support shows Intel with DirectX 12 (11_1) and NVIDIA with DirectX 12 (11_0). OpenGL is 4.4 versus 4.6. Vulkan is 1.0 versus 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a transistor count of 1,020 million and a die size of 77 mm², while the Intel part has no recorded transistor or die data. Release dates are September 2014 for Intel and March 2015 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor, GeForce 800A, while the Intel part has none listed.