GeForce FX 5200 vs Iris Plus Graphics 640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 640 with GeForce FX 5200, including specs and performance data.

Iris Plus Graphics 640
2017
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
3.86
+19200%

Iris Plus Graphics 640 outperforms FX 5200 by a whopping 19200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7011491
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency17.94no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT3eNV18 C1
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date3 January 2017 (7 years ago)6 March 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$69.99

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 cores384no data
Core clock speed300 MHz250 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million29 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate52.801.000
Floating-point processing power0.8448 TFLOPSno data
ROPs62
TMUs484

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).

InterfaceRing BusAGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4DDR
Maximum RAM amount32 GB128 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared200 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data6.4 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)8.0
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.3
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 3.86
+19200%
FX 5200 0.02

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 640 1489
+21171%
FX 5200 7

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 HD21-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.86 0.02
Recency 3 January 2017 6 March 2003
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 150 nm

Iris Plus Graphics 640 has a 19200% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 971.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Plus Graphics 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Plus Graphics 640 is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5200 is a desktop one.


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.


Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
Iris Plus Graphics 640
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200
GeForce FX 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.


3.3 304 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 242 votes

Rate GeForce FX 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.