GeForce GTX 1650 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

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

GTX 1650 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by a whopping 565% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking766269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.84
Power efficiency7.0218.67
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameHaswell GT3eTU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

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 cores320896
Core clock speed200 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors392 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0093.24
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs4056

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 eDRAMGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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
GTX 1650 20.43
+565%

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 1184
GTX 1650 7874
+565%

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.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1923
GTX 1650 13645
+610%

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
GTX 1650 44694
+414%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1381
GTX 1650 9203
+567%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 11930
GTX 1650 50549
+324%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 110085
GTX 1650 373333
+239%

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
−283%
69
+283%
1440p5−6
−680%
39
+680%
4K7
−214%
22
+214%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.82
4Kno data6.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−489%
53
+489%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−4600%
47
+4600%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−1480%
79
+1480%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−643%
52
+643%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−967%
64
+967%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−900%
80
+900%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−1331%
229
+1331%
Hitman 3 8−9
−513%
49
+513%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1227%
292
+1227%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−2425%
101
+2425%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−1000%
77
+1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−858%
115
+858%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−474%
224
+474%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−822%
83
+822%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−3400%
35
+3400%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−1340%
72
+1340%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−557%
46
+557%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−767%
52
+767%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−600%
56
+600%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−1156%
201
+1156%
Hitman 3 8−9
−488%
47
+488%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1082%
260
+1082%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−1675%
71
+1675%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−686%
55
+686%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−517%
74
+517%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−142%
45−50
+142%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−428%
206
+428%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−178%
25
+178%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−14.3%
8
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−550%
39
+550%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−306%
65
+306%
Hitman 3 8−9
−413%
41
+413%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−173%
60
+173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−417%
62
+417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−200%
42
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+85.7%
21
−85.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−671%
54
+671%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−740%
42
+740%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−800%
36
+800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−500%
18
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1050%
21−24
+1050%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−700%
24
+700%
Hitman 3 8−9
−238%
27
+238%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−438%
43
+438%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
−706%
145
+706%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−483%
35
+483%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−750%
17
+750%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−550%
13
+550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1100%
12
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−700%
8
+700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−325%
17
+325%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+0%
122
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+0%
45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 13
+0%
13
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+0%
26
+0%

This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 283% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 680% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 214% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 86% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 61 test (85%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.07 20.43
Recency 27 May 2013 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 22 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 75 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 565.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 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 1650 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.


Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

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.


2.8 163 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23772 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 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.