Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4,556 for the Iris Pro 6200, a 550.3% advantage, making it roughly 6.5 times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 averages 7,472 across all recorded tests, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6,117. The GTX 1650 also sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, five points above the Iris Pro 6200's 35th percentile.

Q: What architecture does each GPU use?

A: The GTX 1650 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture (chip TU117) using a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Iris Pro 6200 uses Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture (Broadwell GT3e) on a 14 nm process at Intel.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested power supply. The Iris Pro 6200 is an integrated GPU with a 15 W TDP, drawing power from the host processor's envelope.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 1650 leads with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,042 versus 6,032 for the Iris Pro 6200, a 447.8% difference. The GTX 1650 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Iris Pro 6200 only supports Vulkan 1.0.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 represent fundamentally different approaches to graphics hardware. The GTX 1650 is a discrete GPU built on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². In contrast, the Iris Pro 6200 is an integrated graphics processor within Intel's Broadwell GT3e chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel, with no publicly recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

The compute pipelines differ sharply. The GTX 1650 packs 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Iris Pro 6200 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. This structural gap translates directly into pixel and texture throughput: the GTX 1650 achieves 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s, while the Iris Pro 6200 manages 6.600 GPixel/s and 52.80 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650's FP32 performance reaches 2.984 TFLOPS with FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), whereas the Iris Pro 6200 delivers 844.8 GFLOPS FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 relies entirely on system shared memory with the bus width and bandwidth marked as system dependent, making its performance inherently tied to the host platform's memory subsystem.

API support also diverges. The GTX 1650 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, a step behind in every graphics API generation. The GTX 1650's display outputs include DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Iris Pro 6200's outputs are motherboard dependent. The GTX 1650 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Iris Pro 6200 uses a Ring Bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 winning both shared benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. It wins 2 out of 2 direct comparisons, with the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 winning none. This is not a close contest in any measured metric.

The GTX 1650's advantage is most pronounced in compute-heavy workloads. Its OpenCL score of 29,629 is 550.3% higher than the Iris Pro 6200's 4,556. This makes the GTX 1650 the clear choice for GPU compute tasks such as OpenCL acceleration in productivity applications, where the integrated Intel part simply cannot keep pace. The Vulkan gap is similarly dramatic: 33,042 versus 6,032, a 447.8% lead for the discrete card. For Vulkan-based games or applications, the GTX 1650 provides far smoother frame delivery and higher fidelity settings.

The Iris Pro 6200's only theoretical advantage lies in its power envelope. At 15 W TDP, it consumes a fraction of the GTX 1650's 75 W, and as an IGP it requires no additional power connectors or slot space. For ultra-portable systems where every watt matters and gaming is secondary, the integrated solution avoids the need for a discrete card. However, the benchmark data shows no workload where the Iris Pro 6200 outperforms the GTX 1650. The GTX 1650 also offers dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory, avoiding the system shared bandwidth bottleneck that constrains the Iris Pro 6200.

In terms of overall standing, the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with its nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead). The Iris Pro 6200 sits at the 35th percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (0.3% behind), NVIDIA RTX A400 (0.6% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (0.7% behind). The percentile gap places the GTX 1650 in a higher performance tier overall.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200:

• Process node: 12 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 4,700 million versus not recorded
• Die size: 200 mm² versus not recorded
• Transistor density: 23.5M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base clock: 1485 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost clock: 1665 MHz versus 1100 MHz
• Memory clock: 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus system shared
• Memory size: 4 GB GDDR5 versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 128.1 GB/s versus system dependent
• Shading units: 896 versus 384
• Texture mapping units: 56 versus 48
• Raster output units: 32 versus 6
• Pixel rate: 53.28 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 93.24 GTexel/s versus 52.80 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 2.984 TFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) versus not recorded
• TDP: 75 W versus 15 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power connectors: None versus not applicable
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not applicable
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus motherboard dependent
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1)
• OpenGL support: 4.6 versus 4.4
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.0
• Dimensions: 229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width versus not recorded
• Release date: 2019-04-22 versus 2014-09-04
• Launch MSRP: 149 USD versus not recorded

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, and both are decisive victories for the discrete GPU.

The first is Geekbench OpenCL, a compute-focused test that measures raw GPGPU throughput. The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, while the Iris Pro 6200 scores 4,556. That is a delta of 550.3%, meaning the GTX 1650 is more than six times faster in this workload. OpenCL performance is critical for tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, and scientific computing that offload parallel work to the GPU. The sheer magnitude of this gap indicates the Iris Pro 6200's integrated design, with only 384 shading units and system shared memory, is not competitive for serious compute workloads.

The second head-to-head test is Geekbench Vulkan, which targets graphics rendering through the Vulkan API. Here the GTX 1650 scores 33,042 against 6,032 for the Iris Pro 6200, a 447.8% delta. Vulkan is increasingly used in modern game engines and cross-platform graphics applications. The GTX 1650's Turing architecture with 896 shading units and dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth delivers a smooth experience, while the Iris Pro 6200, with its 300 MHz base clock and system dependent memory, struggles to maintain playable frame rates in demanding Vulkan titles.

Beyond the direct comparisons, the broader benchmark suite reinforces this picture. The GTX 1650 posts a Passmark G3D score of 7,880, a Passmark GPU compute score of 3,048, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. Its Geekbench Vulkan result of 33,042 is its strongest recorded metric. The Iris Pro 6200's only recorded benchmarks besides the two head-to-head tests are Geekbench Metal at 7,764, which has no GTX 1650 equivalent in the database.

The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the GTX 1650 averages 7,472 across all tests, while the Iris Pro 6200 averages 6,117. The GTX 1650's nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, including the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (0.3% ahead) and Intel Arc A310 at 7,550 (1% behind). The Iris Pro 6200's nearest rivals cluster around 6,077 to 6,137, with the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 sitting 1.1% behind. This places both GPUs in different competitive brackets, with the GTX 1650 firmly in a higher performance class. Every measurable benchmark in the database favors the GTX 1650, often by margins exceeding 400%.