Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Quadro K5200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro K5200 Quadro K6000 Tesla K40d Tesla K40m Tesla K40s Tesla K40st Tesla K40t
VS
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe G1 UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5200 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K5200
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
15.88
+72.4%

K5200 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by an impressive 72% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking351486
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.48no data
Power efficiency7.2622.55
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGK110BTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,699.74 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores230496
Core clock speed667 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed771 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate148.0no data
Floating-point processing power3.553 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48no data
TMUs192no data

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 3.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1502 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth192.3 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 2x DisplayPortno data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA3.5-

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 HD45−50
+66.7%
27
−66.7%
1440p27−30
+68.8%
16
−68.8%
4K18−21
+50%
12
−50%

Cost per frame, $

1080p37.77no data
1440p62.95no data
4K94.43no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 18
+0%
18
+0%
Battlefield 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 124
+0%
124
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+0%
12
+0%
Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+0%
96
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 51
+0%
51
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 112
+0%
112
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 23
+0%
23
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
+0%
8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how Quadro K5200 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K5200 is 67% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro K5200 is 69% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro K5200 is 50% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 15.88 9.21
Recency 22 July 2014 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 28 Watt

Quadro K5200 has a 72.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 435.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook one.

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 Quadro K5200
Quadro K5200
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
vs
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
vs
HD 7970M Radeon HD 7970M
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
vs
Tesla K80 Tesla K80
Quadro K1200 Quadro K1200
vs
GeForce MX330 GeForce MX330
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
vs
GTX 780 Ti 6 GB GTX 780 Ti 6 GB
Quadro K420 Quadro K420
vs
R9 255 OEM R9 255 OEM
Quadro K4200 Quadro K4200
vs
FX 3700 FX 3700
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
vs
RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
vs
FX 1600M FX 1600M
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
vs
R7 250E R7 250E
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
vs
Vega 8 Efficient Vega 8 Efficient
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
vs
R5 M250 R5 M250
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
vs
Qualcomm Adreno 690 Adreno 690

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.8 42 votes

Rate Quadro K5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1005 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K5200 or Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.