Radeon Graphics vs Iris Pro Graphics 5200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with Radeon Graphics, including specs and performance data.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200
2013
System shared System shared + 128 MB eDRAM, 45 Watt
3.07
+54.3%

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms Graphics by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking770902
Place by popularitynot in top-1008
Power efficiency7.049.13
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameHaswell GT3eRenoir
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)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 cores320448
Core clock speed200 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors392 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology22 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0042.00
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs4028

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceRing BusIGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 eDRAMSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem sharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-

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
+54.3%
Radeon Graphics 1.99

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 1180
+54.5%
Radeon Graphics 764

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 HD18
+80%
10−12
−80%
4K7
+75%
4−5
−75%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Elden Ring 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Valorant 1−2 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Dota 2 3
+200%
1−2
−200%
Elden Ring 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Fortnite 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 5
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
Valorant 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 52
+73.3%
30−33
−73.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Dota 2 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Valorant 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Elden Ring 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
World of Tanks 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Valorant 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Valorant 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

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

  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 80% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 75% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.07 1.99
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 15 Watt

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has a 54.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Graphics, on the other hand, has a 214.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.


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
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

Other comparisons

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.


2.9 164 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6543 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 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.