GeForce GTX 1630 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with GeForce GTX 1630, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1630 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by a whopping 320% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 765 | 389 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 7.5 Haswell (2012−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT3e | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 28 June 2022 (2 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 | 40 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.00 | 57.12 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.832 gflops | 1.828 gflops |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System shared + 128 MB eDRAM | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | eDRAM + 64/128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 12 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
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) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.80 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
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 HD | 20
−300%
| 80−85
+300%
|
| 4K | 9
−289%
| 35−40
+289%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−309%
|
90−95
+309%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−310%
|
160−170
+310%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−309%
|
90−95
+309%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−310%
|
160−170
+310%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−309%
|
90−95
+309%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−310%
|
160−170
+310%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
−317%
|
75−80
+317%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1630 is 300% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1630 is 289% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.07 | 12.90 |
| Recency | 5 June 2013 | 28 June 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 75 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1630, on the other hand, has a 320.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1630 is a desktop one.
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.
