GRID M40 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with GRID M40, including specs and performance data.
M40 outperforms Pro Graphics 5200 by a considerable 42% 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 | 835 | 742 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.16 | 6.09 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 (2013) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT3e | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 18 May 2016 (9 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 | 320 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 33.06 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.768 TFLOPS | 0.7933 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
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 | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
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 + 128 MB eDRAM | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 83.2 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) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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 | 18
−33.3%
| 24−27
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 7
−28.6%
| 9−10
+28.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−33.3%
|
60−65
+33.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 52
−34.6%
|
70−75
+34.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−33.3%
|
60−65
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−33.3%
|
60−65
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GRID M40 compete in popular games:
- GRID M40 is 33% faster in 1080p
- GRID M40 is 29% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.76 | 3.91 |
| Recency | 27 May 2013 | 18 May 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 50 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 11.1% lower power consumption.
GRID M40, on the other hand, has a 41.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The GRID M40 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a notebook graphics card while GRID M40 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
