Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE averages 6389 points, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 averages 6117 points. That places the GTX 460 SE in the 37th percentile of all GPUs and the Iris Pro 6200 in the 35th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 460 SE scores 6389 versus 4556 for the Iris Pro 6200, a 40.2% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is the only shared benchmark where both GPUs were tested.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 108.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width, and its bandwidth is listed as System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 384 shading units, compared to 288 on the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE. However, the GTX 460 SE has 32 ROPs versus only 6 on the Intel part.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The Iris Pro 6200 has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), and lists no power connectors or suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 lists Vulkan 1.0 support. The NVIDIA GTX 460 SE lists no Vulkan support, though it does support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload and platform constraints. For raw compute performance in the shared benchmark, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE is decisively ahead, winning the only head-to-head test by 40.2%. Its average benchmark score of 6389 exceeds the Intel Iris Pro 6200's average of 6117 by roughly 4.4%. Anyone needing a discrete GPU with dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher pixel throughput should choose the GTX 460 SE.

However, the Intel Iris Pro 6200 is not without merit. It offers higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s), more shading units (384 versus 288), and significantly lower power consumption at 15 W versus 150 W. It also supports Vulkan, which the NVIDIA part does not. For integrated graphics in a laptop or compact system where power and space are constrained, the Iris Pro 6200 is the only viable option here.

The GTX 460 SE wins the compute crown, but the Iris Pro 6200 wins on efficiency and API breadth. The verdict depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes raw compute or system integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single shared benchmark tells a one-sided story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE scores 6389, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556. That is a 40.2% delta in favor of NVIDIA. This is not a narrow margin; it is a substantial lead that places the GTX 460 SE firmly above the Iris Pro 6200 in compute-heavy tasks.

To contextualize the GTX 460 SE's score, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M at an identical 6389 (0% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407 (-0.3%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (+0.9%). The Intel part, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6137 (-0.3%), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (+0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (+0.7%). So the GTX 460 SE performs like a mid-range mobile discrete GPU, while the Iris Pro 6200 aligns with entry-level discrete parts.

The Iris Pro 6200 does have additional benchmark scores beyond OpenCL. It scores 7764 in Geekbench Metal and 6032 in Geekbench Vulkan. These tests are not available for the GTX 460 SE, so no direct comparison can be made. However, the Iris Pro 6200's OpenCL score of 4556 is its weakest of the three, while its Metal score is its strongest.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The GTX 460 SE uses a 40 nm process node from TSMC, while the Iris Pro 6200 uses Intel's 14 nm node. The NVIDIA chip contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, with a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². The Intel part lists no transistor count, die size, or density.

Clock speeds differ fundamentally. The GTX 460 SE has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 850 MHz (3.4 Gbps effective). The Iris Pro 6200 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with system-shared memory.

Memory configurations are starkly different: the GTX 460 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 108.8 GB/s bandwidth; the Iris Pro 6200 uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. Shading units favor Intel (384 versus 288), TMUs are equal at 48 each, and ROPs heavily favor NVIDIA (32 versus 6).

Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 7.800 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors Intel at 52.80 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors Intel slightly at 844.8 GFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs are also divergent. The GTX 460 SE has a 150 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, suggests a 450 W PSU, and measures 210 mm (8.3 inches) in length. The Iris Pro 6200 has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no slot width, no power connectors, and no dimensions.

Bus interface and display outputs differ as well: the GTX 460 SE uses PCIe 2.0 x16 with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a outputs; the Iris Pro 6200 uses a Ring Bus with motherboard-dependent outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectures are generations apart. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE is built on the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, part of the GeForce 400 generation. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses the Generation 8.0 architecture with the Broadwell GT3e chip, part of the HD Graphics (Broadwell) line.

Manufacturing nodes reflect this generational gap: TSMC's 40 nm process for NVIDIA versus Intel's 14 nm for the Iris Pro. Foundries also differ — TSMC for NVIDIA, Intel for Intel.

The GTX 460 SE packs 1,950 million transistors, a figure not available for the Iris Pro 6200. Die size is 332 mm² for NVIDIA; no die size is listed for Intel. This means the GTX 460 SE relies on a larger, more power-hungry design, while the Iris Pro 6200 leverages a smaller process node for efficiency.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The GTX 460 SE uses dedicated GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the Iris Pro 6200 shares system memory. This explains the massive bandwidth gap: 108.8 GB/s versus System Dependent.

The shading unit count favors Intel (384 versus 288), but the ROP count dramatically favors NVIDIA (32 versus 6). The Iris Pro 6200 compensates with a higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s) and slightly higher FP32 compute (844.8 GFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS).

API support differs in key ways. The GTX 460 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The Iris Pro 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The Intel part is more forward-looking in API support despite being an integrated solution.

Release dates show a four-year gap: the GTX 460 SE launched on November 14, 2010, while the Iris Pro 6200 launched on September 4, 2014. The GTX 460 SE has a predecessor (GeForce 200) and successor (GeForce 500); the Iris Pro 6200 lists neither.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE wins decisively in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6389 is 40.2% higher than the Intel part's 4556. It also wins on pixel rate (7.800 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s), memory bandwidth (108.8 GB/s versus System Dependent), dedicated memory (1024 MB GDDR5 versus System Shared), and ROP count (32 versus 6). For tasks like pixel-heavy rendering, frame buffer operations, or any workload that benefits from dedicated high-bandwidth memory, the GTX 460 SE is the clear choice.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the GTX 460 SE's 150 W, making it suitable for laptops and low-power systems. It also wins on texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 31.20 GTexel/s), shading units (384 versus 288), FP32 compute (844.8 GFLOPS versus 748.8 GFLOPS), and Vulkan support. The Iris Pro 6200's additional benchmark scores — 7764 in Metal and 6032 in Vulkan — suggest strengths in those specific API environments, though no direct comparison exists for the GTX 460 SE.

For users constrained by power budgets or physical space, the Iris Pro 6200 is the only sensible option — it requires no power connectors, no dedicated slot, and no PSU recommendation. For users who need maximum compute throughput and have the power budget to accommodate a 150 W discrete card, the GTX 460 SE is the data-backed winner.

The wins are asymmetric: NVIDIA dominates the only shared benchmark, while Intel dominates in efficiency, texture throughput, and API versatility. The choice reduces to whether raw compute or system integration matters more.