Quadro RTX 5000 vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 with Quadro RTX 5000, including specs and performance data.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200
2014
15 Watt
3.62

RTX 5000 outperforms Pro Graphics 6200 by a whopping 915% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking762143
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.11
Power efficiency18.6012.32
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBroadwell GT3eTU104
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date5 September 2014 (11 years ago)13 August 2018 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores3843072
Core clock speed300 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz1815 MHz
Number of transistors189 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt230 Watt
Texture fill rate52.80348.5
Floating-point processing power0.8448 TFLOPS11.15 TFLOPS
ROPs664
TMUs48192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data48
L1 Cacheno data3 MB
L2 Cacheno data4 MB

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 sizedno data
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data448.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 3.62
RTX 5000 36.75
+915%

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
RTX 5000 15442
+914%
Samples: 969

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

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Fortnite 21−24
−900%
210−220
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−900%
180−190
+900%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−900%
100−105
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−900%
160−170
+900%
Valorant 50−55
−862%
500−550
+862%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
−870%
650−700
+870%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Dota 2 30−35
−782%
300−310
+782%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Fortnite 21−24
−900%
210−220
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−900%
180−190
+900%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−900%
100−105
+900%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−900%
160−170
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Valorant 50−55
−862%
500−550
+862%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Dota 2 30−35
−782%
300−310
+782%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
−900%
140−150
+900%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−900%
180−190
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−900%
160−170
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−900%
110−120
+900%
Valorant 50−55
−862%
500−550
+862%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
−900%
210−220
+900%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−900%
80−85
+900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−900%
280−290
+900%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−868%
300−310
+868%
Valorant 35−40
−821%
350−400
+821%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−900%
90−95
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−900%
50−55
+900%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
−900%
70−75
+900%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−900%
150−160
+900%
Valorant 18−20
−900%
180−190
+900%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Dota 2 12−14
−900%
120−130
+900%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
−900%
40−45
+900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.62 36.75
Recency 5 September 2014 13 August 2018
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 230 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has 1433.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 5000, on the other hand, has a 915.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation one.

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 Quadro RTX 5000
Quadro RTX 5000

Other comparisons

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.


3.2 92 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 241 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Pro Graphics 6200 or Quadro RTX 5000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.