Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 represent two opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum: a dedicated professional workstation GPU versus an integrated processor graphics solution. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but each part has a distinct role depending on the workload and system constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark results paint a clear picture of dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 points against the Iris Pro 6200's 4,556 points. That is a 403.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part, meaning it delivers more than five times the compute throughput in this API. The gap is nearly as large in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M5000M posts 24,875 points versus 6,032 points for the Intel solution, a 312.4% difference. These are not marginal wins; they represent a completely different performance class.

The Quadro M5000M's average benchmark score of 6,481 places it at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro 6200's average of 6,117 sits at the 35th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, their overall percentile rankings are surprisingly close, which reflects how the average score aggregates across many different workloads and test conditions. The Quadro M5000M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6,476, a mere 0.1% difference, while the Iris Pro 6200's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6,137, which trails by 0.3%.

Looking at the full benchmark suite for the Quadro M5000M, it shows strengths across different DirectX versions. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 119 is the highest of its DX tests, while DirectX 11 reaches 54, DirectX 10 hits 35, and DirectX 12 drops to 29. The Passmark G3D score of 7,062 and GPU compute score of 2,756 indicate solid rasterization and compute capabilities. The Iris Pro 6200 has no Passmark data in the fact pack, so its performance in those legacy and modern DirectX paths cannot be directly compared.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M if your priority is raw compute and graphics throughput. The data shows it is over 400% faster in OpenCL and over 300% faster in Vulkan than the Intel Iris Pro 6200. It carries 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the Intel part's system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. For professional applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M5000M is the only viable option between these two.

Choose the Intel Iris Pro 6200 if power consumption and system simplicity matter more than performance. Its 15 W TDP is one-seventh of the Quadro M5000M's 100 W TDP, and it requires no power connectors or MXM module slot. It is an IGP, meaning it shares system memory and needs no dedicated VRAM allocation. The Iris Pro 6200 also has a higher boost clock of 1,100 MHz versus the Quadro's 1,051 MHz, though its base clock of 300 MHz is far lower than the Quadro's 962 MHz.

The Quadro M5000M's average benchmark score of 6,481 puts it in the 37th percentile, while the Iris Pro 6200's 6,117 lands at the 35th percentile — a 364-point difference that equates to roughly 6% in average performance. But the head-to-head results show the real story: when both are tested on the same workloads, the NVIDIA part wins 2-0 with deltas of 403.1% and 312.4%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 403.1% higher than the Intel Iris Pro 6200's 4,556. This is the single largest performance gap between the two.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Quadro M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6,481, placing it at the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The Iris Pro 6200 averages 6,117, which is the 35th percentile. The difference is 364 points, or roughly 6%.

Q: Does the Intel Iris Pro 6200 win any benchmarks?

A: No. In the head-to-head results, the Quadro M5000M wins both tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The Iris Pro 6200 has zero wins in the fact pack.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each?

A: The Quadro M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 uses system shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth and bus width.

Q: How do their DirectX capabilities differ?

A: The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Iris Pro 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The NVIDIA part also has higher OpenGL support (4.6 vs 4.4) and Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.0.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Iris Pro 6200 boosts to 1,100 MHz, which is 49 MHz higher than the Quadro M5000M's 1,051 MHz boost. However, the Quadro's base clock of 962 MHz is much higher than the Intel part's 300 MHz base.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in almost every measurable specification. The Quadro M5000M uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The Iris Pro 6200 uses Intel's 14 nm process, but its transistor count, die size, and density are not listed in the fact pack.

Memory is a major divider. The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro 6200 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host system's RAM configuration.

Compute resources favor the Quadro M5000M heavily: 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs versus the Iris Pro 6200's 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 6 ROPs. Pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 6.6 GPixel/s, texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 52.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor differ dramatically. The Quadro M5000M is a 100 W MXM Module with no power connectors required (presumably supplied through the slot), while the Iris Pro 6200 is a 15 W IGP using a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the Intel part's are motherboard dependent.

API support also diverges: the Quadro M5000M offers DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Iris Pro 6200 has DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro M5000M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture (GM204 chip), part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. It uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with 5,200 million transistors. This architecture predates the Pascal generation and follows the Kepler-M line, with a successor in Quadro Pascal-M.

The Iris Pro 6200 uses Intel's Generation 8.0 architecture on the Broadwell GT3e chip, part of the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation. It is manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process. Unlike the discrete NVIDIA part, the Intel solution is an integrated graphics processor, which explains its lower transistor count requirements and shared memory architecture.

A key architectural difference is the execution resource allocation. The Quadro M5000M's 1,536 shading units operate at a base clock of 962 MHz and boost to 1,051 MHz, achieving 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The Iris Pro 6200's 384 shading units run at a 300 MHz base and 1,100 MHz boost, producing 844.8 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part has more than double the texture units (96 vs 48) and over ten times the ROPs (64 vs 6).

Both parts are end-of-life products. The Quadro M5000M was released on 2015-08-17, while the Iris Pro 6200 came earlier on 2014-09-04. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the fact pack.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins in every measurable benchmark category in the head-to-head comparison. Its 403.1% lead in OpenCL makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any application leveraging OpenCL kernels. The 312.4% advantage in Vulkan extends this to modern graphics APIs, covering game development or Vulkan-based visualization tools.

The Quadro M5000M's 8 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth is another decisive win for large datasets. The Iris Pro 6200's system shared memory means it competes with the CPU for bandwidth, which in the best case is still system-dependent and cannot match dedicated VRAM.

The Intel Iris Pro 6200 wins in power efficiency and integration. At 15 W, it consumes 85 W less than the Quadro M5000M, making it suitable for ultraportable or passively cooled systems. Its IGP form factor requires no MXM slot, making it available in any laptop with a compatible Broadwell processor. The higher boost clock of 1,100 MHz also gives it a slight clock speed advantage, though with far fewer shading units this does not translate to competitive performance.

The data shows the Iris Pro 6200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A400 (0.6% ahead) and GeForce MX230 (0.7% ahead), placing it in the entry-level discrete GPU class. The Quadro M5000M sits near the GeForce GTX 670M (0.5% behind) and Intel UHD Graphics P750 (1.1% behind), which are mid-range parts from earlier generations.

For a mobile workstation needing professional-grade compute, the Quadro M5000M is the only sensible pick. For a thin-and-light laptop where battery life and thermals are paramount, the Iris Pro 6200 offers basic graphics with zero additional power draw beyond the CPU package. The 364-point average benchmark gap between them (6,481 vs 6,117) is small in percentile terms, but the head-to-head deltas of 403.1% and 312.4% show that for any given task, the Quadro M5000M is in a completely different league.