GPU Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics P750 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions from Intel, but they belong to different architectural generations and target different performance profiles. The data shows the P750, based on the Rocket Lake chip with Generation 12.1 architecture, holds a decisive lead in the single available head-to-head benchmark, while the Iris Pro 6200, from the older Broadwell GT3e chip with Generation 8.0 architecture, offers a broader set of API benchmark scores. This analysis breaks down their specifications, benchmark performance, and architectural differences to determine which integrated GPU is better suited for specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a higher average benchmark score of 6554, compared to the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200's average of 6117. This places the P750 in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Iris Pro 6200 sits in the 35th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 6554 against the Iris Pro 6200's 4556. This represents a 43.9% performance advantage for the P750, making it the clear winner in this compute-oriented benchmark.

Q: What is the difference in their boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a higher boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 boosts to 1100 MHz. The base clocks are also different, with the P750 running at 350 MHz and the Iris Pro 6200 at 300 MHz.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has more shading units, with 384 compared to the P750's 256. Despite having fewer shading units, the P750 achieves higher performance in the OpenCL benchmark due to its newer architecture and higher clock speeds.

Q: What are the API support differences between the two?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0, showing the P750 has more modern API capabilities.

Q: How does the pixel rate compare between the two GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P750 has a significantly higher pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 achieves only 6.600 GPixel/s. This is a major difference, indicating the P750 can handle much higher display resolutions and fill rates.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 is built on the Rocket Lake chip using Generation 12.1 architecture, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm+++ process node. In contrast, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip with Generation 8.0 architecture, also on a 14 nm process node but without the triple-plus refinement. This architectural generation gap explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmark data.

The P750 features a lower count of shading units at 256, but compensates with 64 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The Iris Pro 6200 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. The ROP count difference is stark, with the P750 offering more than five times the pixel processing capability, directly reflected in the pixel rate figures of 41.60 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The P750 operates at a base clock of 350 MHz and boosts to 1300 MHz, while the Iris Pro 6200 runs at 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. These higher clocks, combined with the newer architecture, give the P750 a compute advantage despite fewer shading units. The FP32 performance is 665.6 GFLOPS for the P750, while the Iris Pro 6200 delivers 844.8 GFLOPS, showing the older GPU actually has higher raw floating-point throughput in theory.

Both GPUs share the same memory configuration with system-shared memory and system-dependent bandwidth, and both use a Ring Bus interface. The P750 supports more modern APIs including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Iris Pro 6200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The P750 also offers FP16 support at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature absent from the Iris Pro 6200's specifications.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is the clear choice, as benchmark results show it outperforms the Iris Pro 6200 by 43.9% in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The P750's higher average benchmark score of 6554 versus 6117 reinforces this advantage, placing it in a higher percentile ranking of 38th compared to the Iris Pro's 35th.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200, despite having a lower average score, offers better theoretical FP32 performance at 844.8 GFLOPS and more shading units at 384. However, its significantly lower pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and older API support make it less suitable for modern applications that leverage Vulkan 1.4 or DirectX 12 (12_1) features.

Data indicates the P750 is the superior choice for users needing modern API compatibility, higher pixel throughput, and better actual benchmark performance. The Iris Pro 6200 may appeal to those specifically targeting older software ecosystems where its higher shading unit count could theoretically help, but the benchmark evidence does not support this in practice. The P750 wins the single head-to-head benchmark, and its architectural advantages in ROPs, clocks, and API support make it the more future-proof option despite both being end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 differ across several key specification fields. The P750 uses the Rocket Lake chip with Generation 12.1 architecture, while the Iris Pro 6200 uses the Broadwell GT3e chip with Generation 8.0 architecture. The process node is 14 nm+++ for the P750 versus 14 nm for the Iris Pro 6200.

Clock speeds differ, with the P750 having a 350 MHz base clock and 1300 MHz boost, while the Iris Pro 6200 has a 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. The P750 has 256 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Iris Pro 6200 has 384 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 6 ROPs. Pixel rates are 41.60 GPixel/s for the P750 and 6.600 GPixel/s for the Iris Pro 6200, and texture rates are 83.20 GTexel/s versus 52.80 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is 665.6 GFLOPS for the P750 and 844.8 GFLOPS for the Iris Pro 6200. The P750 supports FP16 at 1,331.2 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Iris Pro 6200 has no listed FP16 capability. Both have a TDP of 15 W and use the Ring Bus interface. API support differs, with the P750 offering DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, versus the Iris Pro 6200's DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.0. The release date for the Iris Pro 6200 is September 4, 2014, while the P750 has no listed release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are heavily skewed toward the Intel UHD Graphics P750. The P750 scores 6554, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 4556, giving the P750 a 43.9% performance advantage. This is a substantial margin that indicates the P750's newer Generation 12.1 architecture and higher boost clock of 1300 MHz provide a significant compute advantage over the older Generation 8.0 Iris Pro 6200 with its 1100 MHz boost.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each GPU provides additional context. The P750's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 7730M with an average score of 6581, which is only 0.4% higher than the P750's score. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M scores 6513, putting it 0.6% behind the P750. The P750 also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M460 by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M by 0.9%.

For the Iris Pro 6200, its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8690M with an average score of 6137, just 0.3% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 6078, which is 0.6% behind the Iris Pro 6200, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is 0.7% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is 1.1% behind. These comparisons show the Iris Pro 6200 is competitive with its peers, but the P750's absolute score advantage of 437 points over the Iris Pro 6200 in the OpenCL test is the dominant data point.

The Iris Pro 6200 has additional benchmark scores in Geekbench Metal and Vulkan tests, scoring 7764 and 6032 respectively, but these have no corresponding P750 data for direct comparison. The P750's single OpenCL score of 6554 remains its only benchmark result, giving it a higher average of 6554 compared to the Iris Pro 6200's average of 6117 across its three tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P750 wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, which is the only direct comparison available. This indicates the P750 is better suited for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL, such as general-purpose GPU computing tasks. Its higher pixel rate of 41.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 83.20 GTexel/s also suggest it would excel in graphics rendering scenarios requiring high fill rates, though no direct benchmark confirms this.

The P750 also wins on modern API support, offering DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This makes it the better choice for applications that require the latest graphics features and compatibility, such as newer game titles or professional software that relies on Vulkan 1.4 capabilities. The FP16 support at 1,331.2 GFLOPS provides additional flexibility for workloads that can utilize half-precision arithmetic.

The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 wins in theoretical FP32 performance, delivering 844.8 GFLOPS compared to the P750's 665.6 GFLOPS. It also has more shading units at 384 versus 256, which could theoretically benefit workloads that scale well with shader count rather than clock speed or ROP throughput. The Iris Pro 6200's benchmark scores in Metal (7764) and Vulkan (6032) suggest it performs competitively in those specific API environments, though no P750 comparison data exists.

For users working with legacy software that supports only older API versions like OpenGL 4.4 or Vulkan 1.0, the Iris Pro 6200 remains functional, but the P750's backward compatibility with newer standards makes it more versatile. The data shows the P750 is the winner in practical benchmark performance, while the Iris Pro 6200's advantages are primarily theoretical in nature, with no benchmark evidence to support its higher shading unit count translating into real-world wins.