Iris Pro Graphics P6300 vs GeForce GT 520M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 520M with Iris Pro Graphics P6300, including specs and performance data.

GT 520M
2011
1 GB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.74

Iris Pro Graphics P6300 outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 458% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1158688
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency4.3019.20
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameGF108Broadwell GT3e
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)5 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores48384
Core clock speed600 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors585 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate4.80038.40
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS0.6144 TFLOPS
ROPs46
TMUs848

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.1.80
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

GT 520M 0.74
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 4.13
+458%

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.

GT 520M 285
Iris Pro Graphics P6300 1592
+459%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p8
−400%
40−45
+400%
Full HD12
−442%
65−70
+442%
1200p7
−400%
35−40
+400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−448%
170−180
+448%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−450%
55−60
+450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−448%
170−180
+448%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Hitman 3 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−450%
55−60
+450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−448%
170−180
+448%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

This is how GT 520M and Iris Pro Graphics P6300 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is 400% faster in 900p
  • Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is 442% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is 400% faster in 1200p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 4.13
Recency 5 January 2011 5 September 2014
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 15 Watt

GT 520M has 25% lower power consumption.

Iris Pro Graphics P6300, on the other hand, has a 458.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 520M is a notebook card while Iris Pro Graphics P6300 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 GeForce GT 520M
GeForce GT 520M
Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300
Iris Pro Graphics P6300

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3 406 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 13 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics P6300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.