Iris Plus Graphics 645 vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Aggregated performance score
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 34% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 736 | 652 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.11 | no data |
| Architecture | Gen. 7.5 Haswell (2012−2013) | Gen. 9.5 Coffee Lake (2019) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT3e | Kaby Lake GT3e |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 June 2013 (10 years ago) | 10 July 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Current price | $1086 | no data |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 40 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.00 | 50.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 104.0 gflops | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
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, DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | eDRAM + 64/128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.80 | 1.1.103 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 645 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 34% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 45% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 55% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Iris Plus Graphics 645 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 37% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 19
−36.8%
| 26
+36.8%
|
| 4K | 11
−27.3%
| 14−16
+27.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
This is how Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and Iris Plus Graphics 645 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 36.8% faster than Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in 1080p
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 27.3% faster than Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 645 is 300% faster than the Iris Pro Graphics 5200.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 645 is ahead in 49 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (8%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 2.97 | 3.97 |
| Recency | 5 June 2013 | 10 July 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
The Iris Plus Graphics 645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
