GeForce 8800 GTS 512 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200

Place in the ranking	766	990
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.04
Power efficiency	7.02	0.74
Architecture	Generation 7.5 (2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Haswell GT3e	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	27 May 2013 (11 years ago)	11 December 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	128
Core clock speed	200 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	392 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	22 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	135 Watt
Texture fill rate	48.00	41.60
Floating-point processing power	0.768 TFLOPS	0.416 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	40	64

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 2.0 x16
Length	no data	254 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	820 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	52.48 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

Portable Device Dependent

2x DVI, 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.

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.3	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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 Pro Graphics 5200 3.07
+110%

8800 GTS 512 1.46

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 Pro Graphics 5200 1184
+110%

8800 GTS 512 564

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 +125%	8−9 −125%
4K	7 +133%	3−4 −133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	43.63
4K	no data	116.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 +111%	9−10 −111%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +120%	10−11 −120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +117%	18−20 −117%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and 8800 GTS 512 compete in popular games:

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 125% faster in 1080p
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 133% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.07	1.46
Recency	27 May 2013	11 December 2007
Chip lithography	22 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	135 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 110.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 195.5% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GTS 512 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GTS 512 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.