Radeon Pro 5300M vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with Radeon Pro 5300M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5300M outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 6200 by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 690 | 341 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.24 | 12.58 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Broadwell GT3e | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (4 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 cores | 384 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.80 | 100.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8448 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 6 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 80 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.0 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−244%
|
30−35
+244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
−282%
|
40−45
+282%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−335%
|
100−105
+335%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
−189%
|
75−80
+189%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−320%
|
40−45
+320%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−88.1%
|
75−80
+88.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−244%
|
30−35
+244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
−282%
|
40−45
+282%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−335%
|
100−105
+335%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
−189%
|
75−80
+189%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−320%
|
40−45
+320%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−131%
|
35−40
+131%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−88.1%
|
75−80
+88.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−244%
|
30−35
+244%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−335%
|
100−105
+335%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
−189%
|
75−80
+189%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−131%
|
35−40
+131%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−88.1%
|
75−80
+88.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−320%
|
40−45
+320%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1925%
|
80−85
+1925%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−244%
|
30−35
+244%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5300M is 1925% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5300M is ahead in 63 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.95 | 15.44 |
| Recency | 5 September 2014 | 13 November 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 85 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 466.7% lower power consumption.
Pro 5300M, on the other hand, has a 290.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
