Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 records an average benchmark score of 6117, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M sits at 5284. The Intel part ranks in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 31st percentile for the NVIDIA part.

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M wins the OpenCL test with a score of 6018, beating the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556 by 24.3%. This is the only head-to-head benchmark where NVIDIA comes out ahead.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 takes the Vulkan test decisively with a score of 6032, versus 4549 for the GeForce 940M. That is a 32.6% advantage for Intel, the largest margin in either direction across the recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M draws up to 75 W. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, whereas the NVIDIA part is an MXM Module using an MXM-B (3.0) interface.

Q: What process nodes do these chips use?

A: The Intel part is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, using the Broadwell GT3e chip. The NVIDIA part uses TSMC's 28 nm process with the GM107 chip, and it integrates 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: What API levels 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 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are end-of-life products, with Intel releasing in 2014 and NVIDIA in 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains exactly two benchmark comparisons, and the two GPUs split them evenly. In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M posts 6018 points against 4556 for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. That represents a 24.3% deficit for the Intel part, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA GPU's shading unit count of 512 versus 384 for Intel, along with its higher base clock of 1020 MHz versus 300 MHz, helps explain this OpenCL result.

In geekbench_vulkan, the situation reverses completely. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6032, while the GeForce 940M manages only 4549. The Intel part leads by 32.6%, an even larger margin than NVIDIA's OpenCL win. This suggests the Intel architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently relative to its raw specifications, as the Intel part has fewer shading units, fewer ROPs, and significantly lower peak pixel and texture rates.

Looking at the broader database context, the Intel part's average score of 6117 places it just 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137) and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078). The GeForce 940M's average of 5284 puts it 0.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308) and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317). The Intel part sits in a higher performance tier overall, and its Vulkan advantage over the 940M is the single most dramatic divergence in the comparison.

The average benchmark scores also reveal something important: the Intel part achieves its higher average despite having only one additional benchmark (geekbench_metal at 7764) contributing to its total. The NVIDIA part's average is pulled down by its Vulkan result, which is its weakest score across the tests. The Intel part's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, while the NVIDIA part shows the opposite pattern.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For compute tasks that favor OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the stronger choice, delivering 24.3% higher performance in that specific test. For Vulkan-based workloads, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the definitive winner, with a 32.6% margin that more than compensates for its OpenCL deficit.

The overall average benchmark score favors Intel at 6117 versus 5284, a difference of roughly 15.8% when calculated from the two averages. The Intel part also holds a better percentile ranking (35th versus 31st), and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 and GeForce MX230, both of which sit within 1.1% of its score. The GeForce 940M, by contrast, is clustered with older mobile parts like the GeForce 840M and GTX 760M, with all of those within 0.9% of its average.

For a system builder choosing between these two, the Intel IGP makes sense when Vulkan performance matters and power draw is a concern, since it runs at 15 W versus 75 W. The NVIDIA part makes sense when OpenCL compute is the priority and the system can accommodate an MXM module with its higher power envelope. Neither GPU is current, with both marked end-of-life, but the Intel part's higher average score and better Vulkan showing give it the edge in overall capability.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M runs at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost. Memory is system shared on the Intel part, with bandwidth listed as system dependent, whereas the NVIDIA part has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus delivering 14.40 GB/s.

Shading unit counts favor NVIDIA at 512 versus 384, but Intel leads in texture mapping units with 48 against 32. NVIDIA counters with 16 ROPs versus 6 for Intel, and the pixel rate reflects that: 17.57 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 6.600 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate goes the other way, with Intel at 52.80 GTexel/s and NVIDIA at 35.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on NVIDIA at 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS.

Power and physical configuration diverge sharply. The Intel part is an IGP with 15 W TDP and a Ring Bus interface, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM Module at 75 W with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and no power connectors. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel and portable device dependent for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA chip packs 1,870 million transistors into 148 mm², which the data lists as a transistor density of 12.6M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Broadwell GT3e silicon using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation and supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA, which partially explains the Intel part's dramatically lower TDP of 15 W versus 75 W. The NVIDIA chip's larger transistor count and die size reflect its discrete design, but the Intel IGP achieves competitive average performance with far fewer resources. The Intel part relies on system shared memory, so its bandwidth is dependent on the host system, while the NVIDIA part has dedicated DDR3 memory with a fixed 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

In terms of product lineage, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M lists the GeForce 800M as its predecessor and the GeForce 10 Mobile as its successor. The Intel part has no listed predecessor or successor in the database. Both GPUs are end-of-life, with the Intel part released in September 2014 and the NVIDIA part in March 2015.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins the Vulkan benchmark outright, scoring 6032 against 4549 for the GeForce 940M, a 32.6% advantage. It also wins on average benchmark score (6117 versus 5284), percentile ranking (35th versus 31st), texture fill rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s), and TMU count (48 versus 32). For any workload that relies on Vulkan, or where texture throughput matters, the Intel part is the clear choice. Its 15 W TDP also makes it the only option for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete MXM module.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M wins the OpenCL benchmark with 6018 against 4556, a 24.3% margin. It also leads in shading units (512 versus 384), ROPs (16 versus 6), pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s), FP32 compute (1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS), and memory configuration, with 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 versus system shared memory for Intel. The NVIDIA part is the better pick for OpenCL compute tasks, higher pixel throughput, or scenarios where dedicated memory bandwidth is required.

The database's nearest rival lists reinforce this split. The Intel part's closest competitors include the NVIDIA RTX A400 and GeForce MX230, both within 0.7% of its average score. The GeForce 940M's closest rivals are the GeForce GTX 980M and GeForce 930A, all within 0.6% of its average. The Intel part competes in a slightly higher tier despite being an integrated solution, while the NVIDIA discrete GPU sits among older mobile parts. For a builder prioritizing Vulkan performance and low power draw, the Intel IGP is the data-backed choice; for OpenCL compute and dedicated memory, the NVIDIA part holds the advantage.