Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, one a discrete powerhouse from the Fermi 2.0 era and the other a modern integrated solution. The database results show a clear performance gap in raw compute, but the story is more nuanced when considering API support and platform integration. This analysis compares their recorded benchmark scores, architectural foundations, and specification sheets to determine which GPU suits specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M scores 6946 points, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556 points. This gives NVIDIA a 52.5% advantage, a substantial margin that underscores the difference between a dedicated graphics processor with its own memory pool and an integrated solution sharing system resources.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 675M's score places it in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro 6200 sits at the 35th percentile. This 4-point difference in percentile ranking reflects the raw performance gap, but the Intel chip has additional data points that complicate the picture. The Iris Pro 6200 records scores in three different APIs: 7764 in Geekbench Metal, 4556 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 6032 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 6117, which is lower than the GTX 675M's single OpenCL result of 6946.

The nearest rivals for each GPU provide useful context. The GTX 675M sits between the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975, 0.4% higher) and the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830, 1.7% lower), with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M (7023, 1.1% higher) and NVIDIA T600 (7035, 1.3% higher) just above it. The Iris Pro 6200, by contrast, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon HD 8690M (6137, 0.3% higher), while the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0.6% lower), NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, 0.7% lower), and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049, 1.1% lower) all sit slightly below it.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 675M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but the Iris Pro 6200 demonstrates strengths in API versatility. The Intel chip supports Vulkan 1.0, while the NVIDIA GPU has no Vulkan support listed in the database. This means the Iris Pro 6200 can run workloads that leverage Vulkan, potentially offering better performance in newer applications that prioritize this API. Its Metal score of 7764, which is higher than any score recorded for the GTX 675M, suggests strong performance in Apple's ecosystem, though this comparison is not directly available.

For compute-heavy tasks using OpenCL, the GTX 675M is clearly superior. Its 952.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a substantial foundation for parallel processing. The Iris Pro 6200, with 844.8 GFLOPS FP32 and system-dependent memory bandwidth, cannot match this raw throughput. However, the Intel chip's higher texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s versus 39.68 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part suggests it may handle texture-heavy workloads more efficiently per clock.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The GTX 675M has a 100 W TDP, while the Iris Pro 6200 draws only 15 W. This makes the Intel solution far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal management are critical. The GTX 675M requires an MXM Module slot and has no power connectors, indicating it draws power from the motherboard, but its thermal footprint is still substantial compared to an integrated GPU.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M for users who need maximum compute performance in OpenCL workloads. Its 52.5% lead in the head-to-head benchmark is significant, and its higher average score of 6946 versus 6117 for the Intel chip reinforces this conclusion. The GTX 675M also benefits from a higher pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s) and a wider memory bus (256 bit versus system shared), which are critical for gaming and graphics-intensive applications.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is not without merit. Its Vulkan support gives it access to a modern API that the NVIDIA GPU lacks entirely, and its Metal score suggests strong compatibility with Apple platforms. The 15 W TDP makes it an attractive option for ultraportable devices where the 100 W TDP of the GTX 675M would be impractical. For users who prioritize battery life and mobility over raw performance, the Iris Pro 6200 is the logical choice.

The GTX 675M is the pick for dedicated gaming laptops or mobile workstations where performance is paramount. The Iris Pro 6200 suits mainstream ultrabooks and notebooks that need adequate graphics for everyday tasks, light gaming, and media consumption without the power draw of a discrete GPU. The database shows no scenario where the Intel chip wins a direct compute benchmark, but its feature set and efficiency make it a compelling option for a different class of device.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 675M scores 6946 points compared to 4556 points for the Iris Pro 6200, a 52.5% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 support any APIs that the GTX 675M does not?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro 6200 supports Vulkan 1.0, while the GTX 675M has no Vulkan support listed in the database. The Intel chip also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to DirectX 12 (11_0) for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Iris Pro 6200 has a TDP of 15 W, making the Intel solution significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score across all tests?

A: The GTX 675M has an average score of 6946, while the Iris Pro 6200 averages 6117 across its OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan results.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The GTX 675M features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a better pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 675M achieves 9.920 GPixel/s, compared to 6.600 GPixel/s for the Iris Pro 6200, indicating faster rasterization performance for the NVIDIA GPU.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 675M is built on NVIDIA's Fermi 2.0 architecture using the GF114 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This design incorporates 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Iris Pro 6200, in contrast, uses Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture with the Broadwell GT3e chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Intel part, but the smaller process node indicates a more modern manufacturing approach.

Both GPUs feature 384 shading units, but they are organized differently. The GTX 675M pairs its shading units with 64 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 32 raster operation units (ROPs), while the Iris Pro 6200 has 48 TMUs and only 6 ROPs. This significant difference in ROP count explains the GTX 675M's higher pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s). The Intel chip compensates with a higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 39.68 GTexel/s) and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, compared to no listed boost clock for the NVIDIA GPU.

The GTX 675M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and requires an MXM Module slot, indicating it is a discrete, replaceable component. The Iris Pro 6200 uses a Ring Bus interface and is an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor), meaning it is built into the CPU. Display outputs for the GTX 675M are portable device dependent, while the Iris Pro 6200 outputs are motherboard dependent. The GTX 675M was released on 2012-03-21, while the Iris Pro 6200 launched on 2014-09-04, reflecting two different generations of mobile computing.

Specification Differences

The GTX 675M and Iris Pro 6200 differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 675M has a 40 nm process node from TSMC, while the Iris Pro 6200 uses 14 nm from Intel. The NVIDIA chip features 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size. Memory configurations are starkly different: the GTX 675M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Iris Pro 6200 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Clock speeds also diverge, with the GTX 675M listing a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) and no base or boost clocks, while the Iris Pro 6200 lists a 300 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost clock. Pixel and texture rates favor different aspects: the GTX 675M achieves 9.920 GPixel/s and 39.68 GTexel/s, while the Iris Pro 6200 reaches 6.600 GPixel/s and 52.80 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on the NVIDIA part at 952.3 GFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS.

Power requirements show a 100 W TDP for the GTX 675M versus 15 W for the Iris Pro 6200. The GTX 675M has no power connectors and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Iris Pro 6200 has no listed power connectors and uses a Ring Bus. API support differs in DirectX version (12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)), OpenGL (4.6 versus 4.4), and Vulkan (none versus 1.0). The GTX 675M has a 256-bit memory bus, while the Iris Pro 6200 relies on system shared memory. These differences define two fundamentally different approaches to mobile graphics: one optimized for dedicated performance, the other for integration and efficiency.