Iris Pro Graphics 6200 vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with Iris Pro Graphics 6200, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018, $899
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
35.52
+881%

RTX 4000 outperforms Pro Graphics 6200 by a whopping 881% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking154763
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.85no data
Power efficiency17.1218.61
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameTU104Broadwell GT3e
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2018 (7 years ago)5 September 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 no data

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 cores2304384
Core clock speed1005 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate222.552.80
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS0.8448 TFLOPS
ROPs646
TMUs14448
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no data
L1 Cache2.3 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MBno data

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth416.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.85.1
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.3+
CUDA7.5-
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.

RTX 4000 35.52
+881%
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 3.62

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.

RTX 4000 14924
+880%
Samples: 2122
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 1523

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
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.52 3.62
Recency 13 November 2018 5 September 2014
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 15 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 881.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

Iris Pro Graphics 6200, on the other hand, has 966.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is a notebook 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.


NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
Quadro RTX 4000
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Iris Pro Graphics 6200

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.


3.6 522 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 92 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 4000 or Iris Pro Graphics 6200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.