Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs AMD Radeon HD 6970M
Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and AMD Radeon HD 6970M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 69% higher texture fill rate: 55.2 GTexel / s vs 32.6 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 40 nm
- 5x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 33% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4463 vs 3349
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 5 September 2014 vs 4 January 2011 |
| Texture fill rate | 55.2 GTexel / s vs 32.6 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4463 vs 3349 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6970M
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 680 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 20x more pipelines: 960 vs 48
- Around 48% better floating-point performance: 1,305.6 gflops vs 883.2 gflops
- Around 55% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2270 vs 1461
- Around 15% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 656 vs 569
- 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3229 vs 958
- 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3229 vs 958
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3342 vs 2304
- Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3342 vs 2304
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 680 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 960 vs 48 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,305.6 gflops vs 883.2 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2270 vs 1461 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 656 vs 569 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3229 vs 958 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3229 vs 958 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3342 vs 2304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3342 vs 2304 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6970M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | AMD Radeon HD 6970M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1461 | 2270 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 569 | 656 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2475 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2475 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4463 | 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 958 | 3229 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 958 | 3229 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2304 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2304 | 3342 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.787 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 617.819 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.927 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.456 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 117.801 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | AMD Radeon HD 6970M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Code name | Broadwell GT3e | Blackcomb |
| Launch date | 5 September 2014 | 4 January 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 790 | 779 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 680 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 883.2 gflops | 1,305.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 48 | 960 |
| Texture fill rate | 55.2 GTexel / s | 32.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 1,700 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x1 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
| Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with others
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro4 380 XGL
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5870
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200 vs
NVIDIATesla K20Xm
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 825M
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 450
IntelIris Pro Graphics 6200 vs
AMDRadeon 610M (Dragon Range)
