Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the decisive winner in this comparison. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the GTX 980M takes both wins, with no recorded victories for the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. The GeForce GTX 980M delivers an 80.9% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL and a 65.9% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan, making it the clear choice for any workload that leverages compute or graphics acceleration.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 does hold one notable advantage: its 15 W TDP versus the GTX 980M's lack of a recorded TDP in the database. For an integrated processor graphics solution, that power efficiency is significant, but it comes with a massive performance penalty. The GTX 980M posts an average benchmark score of 5308, while the Iris Pro averages 6117. However, this average is skewed because the Iris Pro has only three benchmark entries, while the GTX 980M has ten, including several older DirectX tests that drag its average down.

The verdict for system builders is straightforward. The GTX 980M is the pick for gaming, GPU compute, and any application where raw graphics throughput matters. The Iris Pro 6200 is the pick for ultra-portable or low-power systems where the 15 W envelope is a hard constraint and the workload is light. The GTX 980M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro sits in the 35th, but that percentile gap does not reflect the head-to-head results, where the GTX 980M dominates by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on the Broadwell GT3e chip, using Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture on a 14 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. It belongs to the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation and uses a Ring Bus interface. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture at TSMC on a 28 nm process node. It is part of the GeForce 900M generation and uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface.

The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. This gives Intel a density advantage in theory, but NVIDIA compensates with sheer silicon scale. The GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Iris Pro's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, so a direct density comparison is not possible, but the GTX 980M's dedicated memory subsystem tells the rest of the story.

Memory is where the architectures diverge most sharply. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That dedicated memory pool is a primary reason for the GTX 980M's benchmark dominance. The Iris Pro's memory clock is listed as "System Shared" with system dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with whatever system RAM is installed, a fundamental architectural limitation.

The GTX 980M also has far more execution resources. It features 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The GTX 980M's pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the Iris Pro, and its texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 52.80 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute throughput is 3.462 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 844.8 GFLOPS for Intel, a fourfold gap.

API support also differs. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. NVIDIA's higher API versions matter for modern titles and compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The GeForce GTX 980M. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 23832 versus 4556 for the Iris Pro, a delta of 80.9% in NVIDIA's favor. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 980M scores 17703 versus 6032, a 65.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Iris Pro have any performance advantage at all?

A: In the head-to-head benchmark data, no. The Iris Pro records zero wins across the two shared tests. Its average benchmark score of 6117 is higher than the GTX 980M's 5308, but that reflects different test sets rather than actual superiority in direct comparison.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The dedicated memory is a major factor in the GTX 980M's performance lead.

Q: What are their process nodes and foundries?

A: The Iris Pro is built on Intel's 14 nm process at Intel's foundry. The GTX 980M is built on TSMC's 28 nm process. The GTX 980M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU is more suitable for a low-power system?

A: The Iris Pro, with a recorded TDP of 15 W. The GTX 980M has no TDP recorded in the database, but its MXM Module form factor and dedicated VRAM indicate a far higher power draw.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The Iris Pro is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a Ring Bus interface, while the GTX 980M is an MXM Module using MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel and portable device dependent for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M |

|---|---|---|

| Manufacturer | Intel | NVIDIA |

| Chip | Broadwell GT3e | GM204 |

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | HD Graphics (Broadwell) | GeForce 900M |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 48 | 96 |

| ROPs | 6 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 72.13 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 52.80 GTexel/s | 108.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 844.8 GFLOPS | 3.462 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 15 W | Not recorded |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Not recorded | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and both tell the same story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832 against the Iris Pro's 4556, a delta of 80.9%. This is the largest gap in the head-to-head data and reflects the GTX 980M's massive advantage in shading units, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. The Iris Pro's 844.8 GFLOPS is simply outmatched by the GTX 980M's 3.462 TFLOPS.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 980M scores 17703 versus 6032, a 65.9% lead. Vulkan performance benefits from the GTX 980M's higher API version (1.4 versus 1.0) and its dedicated GDDR5 memory. The Iris Pro's system shared memory creates a bottleneck that the GTX 980M does not face.

Beyond the direct comparisons, the GTX 980M has a broader benchmark portfolio. It records a Passmark G3D score of 7338, a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2816, and a Passmark G2D score of 490. Its DirectX legacy scores are 125 for DirectX 9, 57 for DirectX 11, 35 for DirectX 10, and 31 for DirectX 12. It also posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 649. The Iris Pro has no such DirectX or 3DMark entries in the database, only its three Geekbench scores.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980M wins in every scenario where performance is the priority. Its 80.9% OpenCL lead and 65.9% Vulkan lead make it the choice for GPU compute, modern game rendering, and any workload that stresses pixel fill rate or texture throughput. With 64 ROPs and 96 TMUs, it handles high-resolution rendering and heavy texture filtering far better than the Iris Pro's 6 ROPs and 48 TMUs. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth means it can feed those execution units without stalling, a critical advantage in memory-intensive scenes.

The Iris Pro wins only in power-constrained scenarios. Its 15 W TDP is the only recorded power figure between the two, and that makes it viable for thin-and-light laptops or systems where cooling and battery life trump performance. The Iris Pro's 35th percentile ranking versus the GTX 980M's 31st percentile is misleading in direct comparison, but it does indicate that the Iris Pro sits close to mid-pack among all GPUs when considering its limited test set.

For a gaming laptop or mobile workstation, the GTX 980M is the only rational choice. The data shows no scenario where the Iris Pro outperforms it in a shared benchmark. For an ultraportable with light graphics demands, the Iris Pro's 15 W envelope and integrated design are the deciding factors, provided the user accepts the 80.9% performance deficit in OpenCL and 65.9% deficit in Vulkan. The GTX 980M's MXM Module form factor also means it requires a compatible laptop chassis, while the Iris Pro is built into the processor, so system integration costs and complexity favor Intel.