Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm
Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm 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 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 15.7x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 235 Watt
- 3.3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 569 vs 172
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 5 September 2014 vs 12 November 2012 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 235 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 569 vs 172 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm
- 2.4x more core clock speed: 732 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 3x more texture fill rate: 164.0 GTexel / s vs 55.2 GTexel / s
- 56x more pipelines: 2688 vs 48
- 4.5x better floating-point performance: 3,935 gflops vs 883.2 gflops
- 2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2918 vs 1461
- 3.6x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 16023 vs 4467
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1032 vs 958
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1032 vs 958
- 3.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7038 vs 2304
- 3.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7038 vs 2304
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 732 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 164.0 GTexel / s vs 55.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2688 vs 48 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,935 gflops vs 883.2 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2918 vs 1461 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 16023 vs 4467 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1032 vs 958 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1032 vs 958 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7038 vs 2304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7038 vs 2304 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200
GPU 2: NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm
| 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 | NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1461 | 2918 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 569 | 172 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2475 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2475 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4467 | 16023 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 958 | 1032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 958 | 1032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2304 | 7038 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2304 | 7038 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 49.455 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1666.354 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.836 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 92.472 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 275.229 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 | NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Kepler |
| Code name | Broadwell GT3e | GK110 |
| Launch date | 5 September 2014 | 12 November 2012 |
| Place in performance rating | 789 | 791 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $7,699 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 732 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 883.2 gflops | 3,935 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 48 | 2688 |
| Texture fill rate | 55.2 GTexel / s | 164.0 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 235 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 7,080 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 267 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 249.6 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 5200 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
ATIFireGL V7100
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
