Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is an end-of-life integrated GPU from Intel's Broadwell generation, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is an active, single-slot workstation card built on the Ampere architecture. Despite their vastly different ages and design goals, the aggregate benchmark data places them within 1% of each other in average score, with the Iris Pro at 6117 and the RTX A400 at 6078. The RTX A400 wins both head-to-head compute tests decisively, but the Iris Pro holds a slight edge in the overall average, driven by its Geekbench Metal score of 7764, a test the NVIDIA card does not have a recorded result for. This creates an unusual dynamic where the older integrated part appears competitive in one metric while being thoroughly outclassed in others.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput and modern API performance. In the two benchmark tests where both GPUs have recorded scores, the NVIDIA card dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22844 against the Iris Pro's 4556, a margin of 80.1%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A400 scores 22237 against 6032, a 72.9% lead. If your workload relies on OpenCL or Vulkan — common in professional rendering, compute acceleration, and modern game engines — the RTX A400 is the only viable choice between the two.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in exactly one scenario: the Geekbench Metal benchmark. It scores 7764 in Metal, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 4556 and Vulkan score of 6032. Since the RTX A400 has no Metal benchmark result in the data, the Iris Pro is the only one of the two that can claim any Apple ecosystem compatibility, as Metal is the primary graphics API on macOS. For a legacy system running macOS-specific applications that leverage Metal, the Iris Pro is the functional option, though its performance is modest relative to its own scores in other APIs.

The Iris Pro also holds a marginal victory in the overall average benchmark score. Its average of 6117 edges out the RTX A400's 6078 by 0.6%. This is purely a statistical artifact of the Metal score inflating its average, as the RTX A400 wins every directly comparable test. In practical terms, the average score difference is negligible, but it does mean the Iris Pro sits 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8690M and 0.6% ahead of the RTX A400 in the aggregate rankings.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans nearly a decade. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip, built on Intel's 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It is part of the Generation 8.0 architecture, specifically the HD Graphics (Broadwell) generation. Its memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, with no dedicated VRAM, relying on the host system's RAM for both storage and bandwidth, which is listed as "System Dependent." The GPU has 384 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and only 6 raster output units. Its compute capabilities peak at 844.8 GFLOPS FP32, with a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 52.80 GTexel/s. It draws a maximum of 15 W and connects via a Ring Bus interface, making it strictly an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is a fundamentally different beast. It uses the GA107 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². It is part of the Ampere architecture, specifically the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. It has 768 shading units — double the Intel part — but only 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Critically, it includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, which the Iris Pro entirely lacks. Its compute performance is 2.706 TFLOPS FP32, and it also delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The memory situation is completely different: 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The card runs at a base clock of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz, with memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). It draws 50 W, fits in a single slot, requires no power connectors, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

The API support also diverges sharply. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Intel GPU's display outputs are motherboard dependent. The RTX A400 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two directly comparable benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and both are landslide victories for the RTX A400.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22844, which is 5.0 times higher than the Iris Pro's 4556. The delta is recorded as -80.1%, meaning the Intel part trails by 80.1%. This massive gap is explained by the NVIDIA card's dedicated GDDR6 memory, higher clock speeds, and more than double the shading units. The Iris Pro's system-shared memory and 300 MHz base clock (boosting to 1100 MHz) simply cannot compete with the RTX A400's 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is similar. The RTX A400 scores 22237 versus the Iris Pro's 6032, a 72.9% deficit for the Intel part. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that favors dedicated GPUs with modern driver stacks, and the RTX A400's Ampere architecture with dedicated RT and tensor cores is far better suited to it. The Iris Pro's Vulkan 1.0 support is the earliest version of the API, and the score reflects its age.

Notably, the RTX A400 also has PassMark results that the Iris Pro lacks entirely. These include a PassMark G3D score of 5983, a G2D score of 899, and a GPU compute score of 2557. Its DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores are 87, 32, 37, and 27 respectively. These are not head-to-head comparisons since the Intel part has no corresponding results, but they provide context for the RTX A400's capabilities in legacy and modern DirectX workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a higher average benchmark score of 6117, which is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A400's 6078. This is due to the Intel part's Geekbench Metal score of 7764, which has no corresponding result on the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the RTX A400 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores as part of its Ampere architecture. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has no RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, and its bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 is dramatically faster in OpenCL, scoring 22844 against the Intel Iris Pro's 4556, a difference of 80.1% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: Are these GPUs the same size?

A: No. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is a single-slot card measuring 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is end-of-life, released on September 4, 2014. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is active, released on April 15, 2024, with a predecessor of Quadro Turing and a successor of Workstation Ada.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | Samsung |

| Transistors | Not listed | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 200 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 768 |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 6 | 16 |

| RT Cores | Not listed | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 24 |

| FP32 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 15 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.4 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.0 | 1.4 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior GPU for any modern compute or graphics workload. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 72.9% and 80.1%, has dedicated memory, supports the latest APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and includes hardware RT and tensor cores. It is a functional, active product suitable for professional workstation use, with a 50 W TDP and no external power connector required.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a legacy integrated part. Its only claim to relevance is its Geekbench Metal score of 7764, which is higher than its own OpenCL and Vulkan scores but has no counterpart on the RTX A400. If you are on a macOS system from the Broadwell era and need a GPU that works with Metal, the Iris Pro is the only option available in this comparison — but its performance is poor relative to its own other API scores, and it is end-of-life.

For anyone building or upgrading a system today, the choice is clear. The RTX A400 offers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 96 GB/s of bandwidth, and modern feature support in a compact single-slot form factor. The Iris Pro offers 844.8 GFLOPS, system-shared memory, and no dedicated VRAM. There is no scenario in the benchmark data where the Intel part outperforms the NVIDIA card in a directly comparable test. Pick the RTX A400 unless you are specifically constrained to a legacy Intel platform with a Metal-only software stack.