Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between these two mobile graphics solutions. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M takes a decisive victory with a score of 5986, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 manages 4556. That works out to a 23.9% deficit for the Intel part, a substantial margin in compute workloads that lean on OpenCL. The Quadro M500M's advantage here is significant enough that it should be the clear choice for any application that scales well with OpenCL execution.

However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 posts a score of 6032, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M trails at 5222. That gives Intel a 15.5% lead, a comfortable margin that flips the competitive landscape. Vulkan-based workloads, including modern game engines and compute APIs that rely on lower-level hardware access, clearly favor the Intel solution in this comparison.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the Intel part lands at 6117, while the NVIDIA part sits at 5604. That is roughly a 9% overall advantage for Intel when averaging across all recorded tests. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 also holds a slightly better percentile position, ranking at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile. Neither part is a powerhouse by modern standards, but the data consistently shows Intel ahead in aggregate.

The head-to-head tally ends at one win apiece. Intel wins Vulkan, NVIDIA wins OpenCL. That makes this a nuanced comparison where the right choice depends entirely on the target workload. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Radeon HD 8690M at 6137 (just 0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (1.1% behind). For the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (1.5% ahead), the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (1.9% behind). These nearest-rival comparisons show both parts sitting in a tightly packed mid-range cluster, where small percentage swings separate competitors.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins in OpenCL compute. The 5986 score against 4556 is not a marginal difference; it is a 23.9% gap that will show up in real-world applications that dispatch heavy parallel work through OpenCL. This includes many professional visualization tools, scientific computing packages, and older game titles that predate Vulkan adoption. If the target software stack relies on OpenCL, the Quadro M500M is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in Vulkan. Its 6032 score against 5222 represents a 15.5% advantage, and Vulkan is increasingly relevant for modern game engines and compute frameworks that take advantage of its lower overhead and explicit control. The Intel part also carries a higher average benchmark score overall at 6117 versus 5604, which suggests it is the more balanced performer across mixed workloads. Additionally, the Intel part has three recorded benchmark scores (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), including a strong Geekbench Metal result of 7764, while the Quadro M500M only has two recorded scores. This gives Intel a broader validation footprint in the database.

For texture and pixel processing, the two parts take different approaches. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 48 texture mapping units and 6 ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has 16 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, resulting in a texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s. The Intel part is nearly three times faster in texture throughput, which matters for games and applications that hammer textures heavily. The NVIDIA part has a higher pixel rate, which benefits fill-rate-bound scenarios. Both parts have 384 shading units, so raw shader count is identical, but the Intel part achieves 844.8 GFLOPS of FP32 compute while the NVIDIA part reaches 863.2 GFLOPS. The FP32 numbers are close, but the NVIDIA part edges ahead by roughly 2%.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. For OpenCL-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the correct pick. Its 23.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is too large to ignore, and the higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 844.8 GFLOPS reinforces that direction. If the primary software stack uses OpenCL for compute acceleration, the Quadro M500M will deliver noticeably better results.

For Vulkan-centric workloads, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is the better choice. The 15.5% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan, combined with the higher average benchmark score of 6117 versus 5604, makes it the stronger all-around part. The Intel solution also benefits from having a system-shared memory architecture, which eliminates the dedicated VRAM cap that the Quadro M500M faces with its 2 GB DDR3 buffer. In applications that are not VRAM-hungry, the shared memory approach can be more flexible.

The production status for both parts is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment. The Intel part was released in September 2014, while the NVIDIA part came later in April 2016. The Intel part uses a 14 nm process from Intel, while the NVIDIA part uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Intel part is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM module with a 30 W TDP. The power draw difference matters for thin-and-light laptops, where the Intel IGP is far easier to cool and power.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M is significantly faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5986 against the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's 4556, a 23.9% advantage.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 6032, beating the NVIDIA Quadro M500M's 5222 by 15.5%.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has an average benchmark score of 6117, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M averages 5604. The Intel part also ranks at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, versus the 32nd percentile for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M have 384 shading units. However, the Intel part has 48 TMUs and 6 ROPs, while the NVIDIA part has 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs.

Q: How much memory does the NVIDIA Quadro M500M have?

A: The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system shared memory, so its memory size, type, and bus width are all system dependent.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M has a 30 W TDP. The Intel part is an IGP that uses the ring bus interface, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is built on Intel's Broadwell GT3e chip, using the Generation 8.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip based on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 28 nm, which gives Intel a significant density and efficiency advantage on paper.

The Intel part integrates 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 6 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also has 384 shading units, but only 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The TMU count difference is stark: Intel has three times the texture units, which explains its 52.80 GTexel/s texture rate versus the NVIDIA part's 17.98 GTexel/s. The ROP count favors NVIDIA, giving it a higher pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for Intel.

Memory architecture differs completely. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system shared memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the host system's RAM. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock for the NVIDIA part is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The Intel part's memory bandwidth is listed as system dependent, so it varies based on the host platform.

API support also diverges. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has newer API versions for OpenGL and Vulkan, which could matter for compatibility with newer software. The Intel part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level, supporting 11_1 versus 11_0.

Thermal and physical characteristics differ meaningfully. The Intel part is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, designed to be integrated into the processor package. The NVIDIA part is an MXM module with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors required. The Intel part uses a Ring Bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are motherboard dependent for Intel and portable device dependent for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on several key specification fields. The process node is 14 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA part has documented transistor and die size data: 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Intel part has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Clock speeds differ in base and boost frequencies. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at a much higher base clock, while the boost clocks are relatively close. The memory clock for NVIDIA is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while Intel's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Intel part has system shared memory, meaning no dedicated VRAM. The NVIDIA part has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent.

FP32 compute performance is close: Intel achieves 844.8 GFLOPS while NVIDIA reaches 863.2 GFLOPS. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate strongly favors Intel at 52.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. TDP differs by a factor of two: 15 W for Intel, 30 W for NVIDIA. Slot width is IGP for Intel and MXM Module for NVIDIA. The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel and MXM-A (3.0) for NVIDIA. Release dates also differ, with Intel launching in September 2014 and NVIDIA in April 2016. The NVIDIA part has a documented predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and successor (Quadro Pascal-M), while the Intel part has neither recorded.