Intel HD Graphics 510 vs NVIDIA NVS 5200M

Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 510 and NVIDIA NVS 5200M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 510

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 11.4 GTexel / s vs 10.75 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 25 Watt
• 32x more maximum memory size: 32 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 22% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 625 vs 513
• Around 12% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2471 vs 2215
• 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.381 vs 5.829
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 215.873 vs 189.966
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.081 vs 0.539
• Around 21% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 11.675 vs 9.643
• 4.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 902 vs 222
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1333 vs 1099
• 4.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 902 vs 222
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1333 vs 1099

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA NVS 5200M

• 2.2x more core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 300 MHz
• 8x more pipelines: 96 vs 12
• Around 41% better floating-point performance: 258.0 gflops vs 182.4 gflops
• Around 15% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 188 vs 163
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.851 vs 15.094
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2715 vs 1786
• Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2715 vs 1786

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 510
GPU 2: NVIDIA NVS 5200M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	625 513
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	163 188
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	2471 2215
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.381 5.829
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	215.873 189.966
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.081 0.539
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.675 9.643
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.094 16.851
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	902 222
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1333 1099
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1786 2715
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	902 222
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1333 1099
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1786 2715

Compare specifications (specs)