GeForce GT 635M vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and GeForce GT 635M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200
2014
15 Watt
3.95
+172%

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 outperforms GT 635M by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking697994
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency18.042.84
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameBroadwell GT3eGF116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 September 2014 (10 years ago)22 March 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384Up to 144
Core clock speed300 MHzUp to 675 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz753 MHz
Number of transistors189 million1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate52.8016.20
Floating-point processing power0.8448 TFLOPS0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPs616
TMUs4824

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem SharedUp to 192bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno dataUp to 43.2 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray-+
Optimus-+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 3.95
+172%
GT 635M 1.45

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 1523
+173%
GT 635M 557

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 2766
+149%
GT 635M 1110

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 1737
+132%
GT 635M 750

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD65−70
+171%
24
−171%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+80%
14−16
−80%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+80%
14−16
−80%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+80%
14−16
−80%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

This is how Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and GT 635M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 171% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 475% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Iris Pro Graphics 6200 surpassed GT 635M in all 49 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.95 1.45
Recency 5 September 2014 22 March 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 172.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Iris Pro Graphics 6200
NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M
GeForce GT 635M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 85 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 6200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 464 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.