In Atomfall, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is quite a bit slower than the GeForce GTX 1650. We cannot compare value as at least one GPU is out of stock.
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
- Consumes up to 40% less energy – 45 vs 75 Watts
- Consumes up to 40% less energy
GeForce GTX 1650
- Up to 38% faster in Atomfall – 36 vs 26 FPS
- Up to 38% faster in Atomfall
- Is 5 years and 10 months newer – Apr 23, 2019 vs Jun 03, 2013
- Is 5 years and 10 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs GeForce GTX 1650: Comparison of performance and price
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Jun 3rd, 2013
Average FPS
26 FPS
72%
Min 1% FPS
20 FPS
74%
Price, $
...
Value, $/FPS
...
All items are out of stock
GeForce GTX 1650
Apr 23rd, 2019
Average FPS
36 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
27 FPS
100%
Price, $
$199
100%
Value, $/FPS
$5.52/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs GeForce GTX 1650: Comparison of synthetic benchmarks
Performance Specifications
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs GeForce GTX 1650: Comparison of core performance specifications
Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Jun 3rd, 2013
Memory
0 GB
0%
Memory Bandwidth
0 GB/s
0%
Pixel Fillrate
4.6 GPixel/s
9%
Texture Fillrate
46 GTexel/s
49%
FP32
736 GFLOPS
25%
GeForce GTX 1650
Apr 23rd, 2019
Memory
4 GB
100%
Memory Bandwidth
128.1 GB/s
100%
Pixel Fillrate
53.28 GPixel/s
100%
Texture Fillrate
93.24 GTexel/s
100%
FP32
2.984 TFLOPS
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Jun 3rd, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | GeForce GTX 1650 Apr 23rd, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 3rd, 2013 | Released | Apr 23rd, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | $149.00 |
| HD Graphics (Haswell) | Generation | GeForce 16 |
Integrated | Segment | Desktop |
45 W | Power Consumption | 75 W |
