GeForce Go 7800 GTX vs Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 6200 and GeForce Go 7800 GTX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro Graphics 6200 outperforms Go 7800 GTX by a whopping 632% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 779 | 1310 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.88 | 0.60 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Broadwell GT3e | G70 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 29 September 2005 (20 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 440 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 302 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.80 | 10.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8448 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 6 | 24 |
| TMUs | 48 | 24 |
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 size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 35.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Palworld | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Palworld | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+294%
|
16−18
−294%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+209%
|
10−12
−209%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+209%
|
10−12
−209%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Palworld | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Pro Graphics 6200 surpassed Go 7800 GTX in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.66 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 5 September 2014 | 29 September 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 6200 has a 632% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 686% more advanced lithography process, and 333% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 7800 GTX in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
