GeForce 320M vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200
2013
System shared System shared + 128 MB eDRAM, 45 Watt
3.07
+469%

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms 320M by a whopping 469% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7701224
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.041.62
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameHaswell GT3eC89
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 years ago)

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 cores32048
Core clock speed200 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate48.007.200
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs4016

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 2.0 x16

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 shared + 128 MB eDRAMSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem sharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.33.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A

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.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 3.07
+469%
GeForce 320M 0.54

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 5200 1180
+465%
GeForce 320M 209

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 8692
+369%
GeForce 320M 1852

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:

Full HD18
−11.1%
20
+11.1%
4K7
+600%
1−2
−600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Elden Ring 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Valorant 1−2 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Dota 2 3 0−1
Elden Ring 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Fortnite 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Grand Theft Auto V 5 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
Valorant 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 52
+225%
16−18
−225%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Dota 2 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Valorant 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Elden Ring 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
World of Tanks 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Valorant 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Valorant 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is 11% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 600% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.07 0.54
Recency 27 May 2013 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 23 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 468.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has 95.7% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.


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.


Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

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.


2.9 164 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 53 votes

Rate GeForce 320M 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.