GeForce 810A vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GeForce 810A, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms 810A by an impressive 81% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 780 | 943 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.02 | 7.77 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 (2013) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT3e | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 22 July 2014 (10 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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 719 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 758 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 12.13 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.768 TFLOPS | 0.2911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
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 x8 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 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 compatibility
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 | - | 3.5 |
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.
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.
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
+100%
| 9−10
−100%
|
| 4K | 7
+133%
| 3−4
−133%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 52
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GeForce 810A compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 100% faster in 1080p
- Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 133% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.07 | 1.70 |
| Recency | 27 May 2013 | 22 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 80.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 810A, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 810A 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.
