Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs GeForce GT 755M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 755M and Iris Pro Graphics 5200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 755M
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
4.38
+43.1%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
2013
System shared System shared + 128 MB eDRAM, 45 Watt
3.06

GT 755M outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking668764
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.117.11
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 7.5 (2013)
GPU code nameGK107Haswell GT3e
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date25 June 2013 (11 years ago)27 May 2013 (11 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 cores384320
Core clock speed980 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3648.00
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS0.768 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs3240

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus

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 amount2 GBSystem shared
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1350 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth86.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play+-
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.3
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
CUDA+-

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.

GT 755M 4.38
+43.1%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 3.06

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.

GT 755M 1688
+42.9%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1181

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 755M 2801
+45.6%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1923

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 755M 12711
+46.2%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 8692

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.

GT 755M 2106
+52.5%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 1381

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 755M 14967
+25.5%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 11930

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GT 755M 28
+33.7%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 21

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:

900p56
+60%
35−40
−60%
Full HD23
+27.8%
18
−27.8%
4K10−12
+25%
8
−25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−11.8%
19
+11.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Hitman 3 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Hitman 3 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

This is how GT 755M and Iris Pro Graphics 5200 compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M is 60% faster in 900p
  • GT 755M is 28% faster in 1080p
  • GT 755M is 25% 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 GT 755M is 300% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 12% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 755M is ahead in 60 tests (97%)
  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.38 3.06
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 45 Watt

GT 755M has a 43.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 11.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 755M 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M
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.


3.3 76 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M 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.