Radeon HD 6950M vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Radeon HD 6950M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 outperforms HD 6950M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 668 | 694 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Architecture | Gen. 8 Broadwell (2014−2015) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
GPU code name | Broadwell GT3e | Blackcomb Pro |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 2 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 6 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 960 |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 580 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 189 million | 1,700 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 27.84 |
Floating-point performance | 883.2 gflops | 1,113.6 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and Radeon HD 6950M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Laptop size | medium sized | large |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x1 | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | eDRAM + 64/128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 115.2 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 Connectors | No outputs | 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.4 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | 1.1.80 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
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.
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
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+8%
|
24−27
−8%
|
Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+2.4%
|
40−45
−2.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+8%
|
24−27
−8%
|
Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+2.4%
|
40−45
−2.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+8%
|
24−27
−8%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+2.4%
|
40−45
−2.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+9.1%
|
21−24
−9.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is ahead in 48 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 3.92 | 3.54 |
Recency | 2 June 2015 | 6 January 2011 |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 10.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M in performance tests.
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.