Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs Radeon R9 270X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270X and Iris Pro Graphics 5200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 270X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 180 Watt
12.62
+310%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
2013
System shared System shared + 128 MB eDRAM, 45 Watt
3.08

R9 270X outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by a whopping 310% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking392760
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.64no data
Power efficiency4.857.11
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 7.5 (2013)
GPU code nameCuracaoHaswell GT3e
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)27 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

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 cores1280320
Core clock speedno data200 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate84.0048.00
Floating-point processing power2.688 TFLOPS0.768 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs8040

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
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2 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 + 128 MB eDRAM
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem 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+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API 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. 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.

R9 270X 12.62
+310%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 3.08

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.

R9 270X 4869
+310%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1187

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.

R9 270X 6560
+375%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1381

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
+289%
18
−289%
4K30−35
+275%
8
−275%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.84no data
4K6.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+222%
9−10
−222%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+338%
8−9
−338%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+419%
16−18
−419%
Hitman 3 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+200%
21−24
−200%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+82.1%
35−40
−82.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+222%
9−10
−222%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+338%
8−9
−338%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+419%
16−18
−419%
Hitman 3 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+200%
21−24
−200%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+63.2%
19
−63.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+82.1%
35−40
−82.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+222%
9−10
−222%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+419%
16−18
−419%
Hitman 3 24−27
+200%
8−9
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+200%
21−24
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+121%
14−16
−121%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+82.1%
35−40
−82.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+343%
14−16
−343%
Hitman 3 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+339%
18−20
−339%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Hitman 3 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+329%
14−16
−329%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%

This is how R9 270X and Iris Pro Graphics 5200 compete in popular games:

  • R9 270X is 289% faster in 1080p
  • R9 270X is 275% faster in 4K

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 270X is 1900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 270X surpassed Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in all 62 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.62 3.08
Recency 8 October 2013 27 May 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 45 Watt

R9 270X has a 309.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 4 months.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon R9 270X
Radeon R9 270X
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Iris Pro Graphics 5200

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.


4 741 vote

Rate Radeon R9 270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 162 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 5200 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.