Iris Graphics 5100 vs Radeon R7 265

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with Iris Graphics 5100, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.45
+441%

R7 265 outperforms Iris Graphics 5100 by a whopping 441% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking445915
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.33no data
Power efficiency4.784.41
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 7.5 (2013)
GPU code namePitcairnHaswell GT3
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (11 years ago)27 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 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 cores1024320
Core clock speedno data200 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million1,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2044.00
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.704 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs6440

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1400 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth179.2 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, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.3
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-+

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.

R7 265 10.45
+441%
Iris Graphics 5100 1.93

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.

R7 265 5220
+494%
Iris Graphics 5100 879

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 HD70−75
+438%
13
−438%
4K35−40
+400%
7
−400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.13no data
4K4.26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 31
+0%
31
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R7 265 and Iris Graphics 5100 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 438% faster in 1080p
  • R7 265 is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.45 1.93
Recency 13 February 2014 27 May 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 30 Watt

R7 265 has a 441.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 8 months.

Iris Graphics 5100, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Graphics 5100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while Iris Graphics 5100 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.


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
Intel Iris Graphics 5100
Iris Graphics 5100

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.


3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 105 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 5100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or Iris Graphics 5100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.