GeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking761not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.11no data
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameHaswell GT3eGK104
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)13 September 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 cores320960
Core clock speed200 MHz980 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1032 MHz
Number of transistors392 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt140 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0082.56
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS1.981 TFLOPS
ROPs424
TMUs4080

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 BusPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeSystem shared + 128 MB eDRAMGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1502 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data144.2 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

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 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

Pros & cons summary


Recency 27 May 2013 13 September 2014
Chip lithography 22 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 140 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 211.1% lower power consumption.

GTX 660 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.

We couldn't decide between Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2. We've got no test results to judge.


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 Pro Graphics 5200
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2
GeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2

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.


2.8 162 votes

Rate Iris Pro Graphics 5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 49 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2 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.