UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5165

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
550v 560v 565v 4650 4670 4670 Mac Edition 5165
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 750 32EUs Xe G1 Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5165 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI Mobility HD 5165
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
1.01

Graphics 750 32EUs outperforms Mobility HD 5165 by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
ATI Mobility HD 5165 Mobility HD 5165
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1156750
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.22no data
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Gen. 12 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameM96Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (16 years ago)30 March 2021 (5 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 cores32032
Core clock speed600 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors514 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Wattno data
Texture fill rate19.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs32no data
L1 Cache64 KBno data
L2 Cache128 KBno data

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
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed900 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX10.1 (10_1)DirectX 12_1
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-

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 HD4−5
−300%
16
+300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−600%
14
+600%
Fortnite 2−3
−1050%
21−24
+1050%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
Valorant 30−35
−74.2%
50−55
+74.2%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−184%
70−75
+184%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Dota 2 14−16
−127%
34
+127%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−550%
13
+550%
Fortnite 2−3
−1050%
21−24
+1050%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−500%
6
+500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Valorant 30−35
−74.2%
50−55
+74.2%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Dota 2 14−16
−107%
31
+107%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−500%
12
+500%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Valorant 30−35
−287%
120−130
+287%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−1050%
21−24
+1050%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Valorant 5−6
−300%
20−22
+300%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 13
+0%
13
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how ATI Mobility HD 5165 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is 300% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is 1050% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs performs better in 28 tests (74%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.01 3.95
Recency 7 January 2010 30 March 2021
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs has a 291% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 293% more advanced lithography process.

The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5165 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.

ATI Mobility HD 5165 Mobility Radeon HD 5165
vs
GeForce 710A GeForce 710A
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs
vs
R7 M380 Radeon R7 M380
ATI Mobility HD 5165 Mobility Radeon HD 5165
vs
GT 710M GeForce GT 710M
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
RX 560 XT 560 XT
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
GTX 750 GM206 750 GM206
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
Pro 5300 5300
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
RTX 3080 Mobile 3080 Mobile
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
T400 Mobile Mobile
ATI Mobility HD 5165 ATI Radeon HD 5165
vs
Pro W5500X W5500X
ATI Mobility HD 560v ATI Radeon HD 560v
vs
HD 8280 8280
ATI Mobility HD 560v ATI Radeon HD 560v
vs
Plex 7000 7000
ATI Mobility HD 560v ATI Radeon HD 560v
vs
Tesla C2090 C2090

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

5 2 votes

Rate Mobility Radeon HD 5165 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 15 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Mobility Radeon HD 5165 or UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.