NVS 300 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with NVS 300, including specs and performance data.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200
2013
System shared System shared + 128 MB eDRAM, 45 Watt
3.06
+887%

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 887% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7661317
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency7.101.20
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameHaswell GT3eGT218
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)8 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$109

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 cores32016
Core clock speed200 MHz520 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate48.004.160
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs408

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
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-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 eDRAMDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.64 GB/s
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 Dependent1x DMS-59

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
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-1.2

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 3.06
+887%
NVS 300 0.31

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 1181
+876%
NVS 300 121

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
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
4K70−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data109.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and NVS 300 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 1700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.06 0.31
Recency 27 May 2013 8 January 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 18 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 887.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 300, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a notebook card while NVS 300 is a workstation 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 NVS 300
NVS 300

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.


2.8 162 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 46 votes

Rate NVS 300 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.