Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Iris Pro Graphics 5200, including specs and performance data.
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms ATI HD 4850 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 777 | 740 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.17 | 0.11 |
| Architecture | Terascale 1 (2008−2010) | Gen. 7.5 Haswell (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | Haswell GT3e |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 5 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
| Current price | $138 (0.7x MSRP) | $1086 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
ATI HD 4850 has 55% better value for money than Iris Pro Graphics 5200.
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 | 800 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 52.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,000.0 gflops | 104.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 4850 and Iris Pro Graphics 5200 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR3 | System shared + 128 MB eDRAM |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | eDRAM + 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.80 |
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 Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 12% based on our aggregate 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 Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 16% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon HD 4850 outperforms Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 3% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 6% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 outperforms Radeon HD 4850 by 51% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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:
| 900p | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| Full HD | 38
+90%
| 20
−90%
|
| 1200p | 19
−10.5%
| 21−24
+10.5%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−22.2%
| 11
+22.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Iris Pro Graphics 5200 compete in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 7% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 90% faster in 1080p
- Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 11% faster in 1200p
- Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 22% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is ahead in 31 test (53%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 5 June 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4850 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop card while Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is a notebook one.
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.
