Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs ATI FirePro M5800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M5800 with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms ATI M5800 by a whopping 255% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1007 | 634 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.81 | 14.07 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | Madison | DG1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (4 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 400 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.00 | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.52 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 24 |
| TMUs | 20 | 48 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
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 | GDDR5 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 68.26 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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 HD | 21
−28.6%
| 27
+28.6%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−300%
| 20
+300%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−300%
| 16
+300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1800%
|
38
+1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−750%
|
34
+750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−177%
|
80−85
+177%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−135%
|
40
+135%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−675%
|
31
+675%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−800%
|
18
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−467%
|
34
+467%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1550%
|
33
+1550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−124%
|
38
+124%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−214%
|
21−24
+214%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−200%
|
18
+200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−450%
|
22
+450%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−363%
|
35−40
+363%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−267%
|
30−35
+267%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−783%
|
50−55
+783%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how ATI M5800 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 29% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 300% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead in 48 tests (80%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (20%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.41 | 5.01 |
| Recency | 1 March 2010 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 25 Watt |
Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 255.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 4% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5800 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M5800 is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
