Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and NVIDIA GeForce MX230 are both end-of-life integrated and discrete-class GPUs aimed at thin laptops, but they come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel part is a Broadwell GT3e iGPU from 2014 with 384 shading units and a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA MX230 is a Pascal-based GP108 chip from 2019 with 256 shading units, a 10 W TDP, and dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 6117 for Intel versus 6077 for NVIDIA — placing both in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. However, the benchmark breakdown reveals a clear split: the MX230 wins both shared compute tests, but the Iris Pro holds a slight edge in the aggregate due to its strong Geekbench Metal showing. This page breaks down the numbers so you can decide which legacy part matters for your use case.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 edges out the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6117 versus 6077. That is a 0.7% difference, with the Intel part sitting slightly ahead in the aggregate, though both land in the same 35th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do they compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is clearly faster in OpenCL, scoring 5739 against Intel’s 4556. That is a 20.6% advantage for NVIDIA, making it the dominant choice for any workload that relies on this API.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: NVIDIA also wins in Vulkan, with a score of 6414 versus Intel’s 6032. The margin is smaller — 6% — but the MX230 still takes the win, suggesting it has better driver optimization or hardware acceleration for modern graphics APIs.

Q: Does the Intel GPU have any benchmark where it wins?

A: Yes, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a Geekbench Metal score of 7764, which is not available for the MX230 in the data. This single result lifts Intel’s average score above NVIDIA’s, even though NVIDIA wins every head-to-head test listed.

Q: Are they close enough in performance to be interchangeable?

A: In aggregate, yes — the difference in average scores is only 0.7%, and both GPUs sit at the 35th percentile. But in practice, the MX230 is 20.6% faster in OpenCL and 6% faster in Vulkan, so the choice depends heavily on which API your software uses.

Q: Which GPU has a lower TDP?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has a 10 W TDP, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 runs at 15 W. That makes the MX230 more power-efficient on paper, which could matter for battery life in thin laptops.

The Verdict

If you are choosing strictly between these two for a legacy system, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is the safer pick for general compute tasks. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks: 20.6% ahead in OpenCL and 6% ahead in Vulkan. That translates to real-world performance in applications that use these APIs, which covers most modern games and GPU-accelerated software. The MX230 also brings dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Intel part’s system-shared memory, and its 10 W TDP is lower.

However, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is not without merit. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 is substantially above its own OpenCL and Vulkan results, and it is the only GPU in this comparison with a Metal benchmark. If you are on a macOS or any Metal-centric workload, the Intel part appears to have a significant edge in that specific API, despite losing the other two tests. The Intel GPU also has more shading units (384 versus 256) and a higher FP32 rate (844.8 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS), which may help in raw compute scenarios that are not captured by the shared benchmarks.

In practical terms: for Windows or Linux users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the MX230 is the clear winner. For macOS users or those dependent on Metal, the Intel Iris Pro 6200 is the only option with a tested Metal score, and it looks strong there. Neither part is remotely modern, so the decision should hinge on your specific software stack, not on overall averages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: NVIDIA wins both tests, but the margins differ dramatically. In Geekbench OpenCL, the MX230 scores 5739 against Intel’s 4556, a 20.6% delta. That is a decisive victory, likely driven by the MX230’s dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher clock speeds — the NVIDIA part boosts to 1531 MHz versus Intel’s 1100 MHz. The OpenCL test is compute-heavy, and the MX230’s faster memory interface (48.06 GB/s versus system-shared) gives it a clear advantage.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is closer. The MX230 scores 6414, while the Intel Iris Pro hits 6032, a 6% gap. Vulkan is more about driver efficiency and draw-call handling than raw memory bandwidth, so the Intel GPU’s higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s) and more TMUs (48 versus 16) help close the gap. Still, the MX230 wins, likely due to its newer architecture (Pascal versus Generation 8.0) and better API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.0).

Notably, the Intel part has a Geekbench Metal score of 7764, which is not included in the head-to-head because the MX230 lacks a Metal result. If you were to compare that 7764 to the MX230’s best score (6414 in Vulkan), the Intel GPU would be 21% ahead. This suggests that the Intel part is not universally slower — it is simply better optimized for Apple’s Metal API, while NVIDIA dominates the cross-platform compute APIs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in core configuration and memory architecture. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs, while the NVIDIA MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means Intel has 50% more shading units and 3x the TMUs, but NVIDIA has 2.7x the ROPs — a trade-off that favors Intel for texture-heavy work and NVIDIA for pixel-heavy rasterization.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Intel part runs at a base of 300 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz, while the MX230 runs at a base of 1519 MHz and boosts to 1531 MHz. NVIDIA’s clocks are over 1.4x higher at boost, which compensates for its fewer cores. The result: Intel’s FP32 throughput is 844.8 GFLOPS versus NVIDIA’s 783.9 GFLOPS, so Intel still leads in raw compute, if only by 7.8%.

Memory is the biggest practical difference. The MX230 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses system-shared memory with bandwidth listed as "System Dependent." In a laptop with decent RAM, the MX230’s dedicated memory avoids contention with the CPU and provides predictable performance. The Intel iGPU, by contrast, shares the system memory controller, which can bottleneck in memory-heavy tasks.

Other differences: the MX230 has a 10 W TDP versus Intel’s 15 W, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x4 bus interface while Intel uses a Ring Bus. The MX230 has a smaller die (74 mm²) with 1,800 million transistors on Samsung’s 14 nm process, while the Intel part is also 14 nm but from Intel’s foundry. Both are end-of-life, but the MX230 was released in 2019, nearly five years after the Intel part’s 2014 launch.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is generational. Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Broadwell GT3e, using Intel’s Generation 8.0 architecture (HD Graphics, Broadwell). NVIDIA’s MX230 is based on the GP108 chip, using the Pascal architecture from the GeForce MX 2xx series. Pascal is a newer design with better power efficiency and API support, which shows in the Vulkan and OpenCL results.

Process nodes are identical — both are 14 nm — but the foundries differ: Intel for the Iris Pro, Samsung for the MX230. The MX230’s transistor density is 24.3M per mm², while the Intel part does not list a density figure. The MX230 has 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die; the Intel part’s transistor count and die size are not provided.

API support is a clear win for NVIDIA. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The newer API versions on the MX230 mean better compatibility with modern games and applications, even if the hardware is older. The MX230 also lists FP16 support at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Intel part has no FP16 data.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Intel iGPU uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, while the MX230 has 2 GB of GDDR5. This is not just a capacity difference — the MX230’s dedicated memory provides consistent bandwidth (48.06 GB/s) and avoids the latency and contention of shared memory. The Intel part’s bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means its performance scales with the system RAM speed and workload.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan. The OpenCL margin is huge — 20.6% — making it the clear choice for compute workloads like video encoding, physics simulation, or any application that uses OpenCL for GPU acceleration. The Vulkan win is smaller at 6%, but it still matters for modern games and Vulkan-based emulators. The MX230 also wins on power efficiency with its 10 W TDP, and its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory means it will not suffer from system RAM bottlenecks. For any Windows or Linux user running cross-platform APIs, the MX230 is the better part.

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in Metal and raw compute specs. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7764 is not directly comparable to the MX230’s scores, but it is 21% higher than NVIDIA’s best result (6414 in Vulkan). If you are on a macOS system or rely on Metal for graphics, the Intel part is the only one with a tested Metal score, and it looks strong. The Intel GPU also has higher FP32 throughput (844.8 GFLOPS versus 783.9 GFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (52.80 GTexel/s versus 24.50 GTexel/s), which could benefit specific compute tasks that are not covered by the shared benchmarks. Its 384 shading units and 48 TMUs give it an edge in texture-heavy workloads, even if its 6 ROPs limit pixel output.

The tie-breaker is your software. If you are running Linux or Windows with OpenCL/Vulkan apps, the MX230 is the obvious choice — it wins both head-to-head tests and has better API support. If you are on macOS or use Metal exclusively, the Intel part is your only option, and its Metal score suggests it handles that API well. Neither GPU is fast by modern standards, but within this narrow comparison, the MX230 is the more versatile performer.