Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GRID K2
Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and NVIDIA GRID K2 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), 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 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 28 nm
- 7.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 225 Watt
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 399 vs 319
- 9.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3285 vs 344
- 9.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3285 vs 344
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 225 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 vs 319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 vs 344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 vs 344 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID K2
- 3.7x more core clock speed: 745 MHz vs 200 MHz
- 28.4x more texture fill rate: 2x 95.36 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 10.4 GTexel / s
- 76.8x more pipelines: 2x 1536 vs 40
- 44x better floating-point performance: 2x 2,289 gflops vs 104.0 gflops
- 2.3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2737 vs 1191
- 3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6371 vs 2095
- 3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6371 vs 2095
- 2.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10446 vs 5081
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz vs 200 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 2x 95.36 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 10.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2x 1536 vs 40 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 2,289 gflops vs 104.0 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2737 vs 1191 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6371 vs 2095 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6371 vs 2095 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10446 vs 5081 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K2
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1191 | 2737 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 | 319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2095 | 6371 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2095 | 6371 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5081 | 10446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 | 344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 | 344 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.943 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 968.568 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.51 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 32.988 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 114.144 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 312 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 312 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GRID K2 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Kepler |
| Code name | Haswell GT3e | GK104 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2013 | 11 May 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 644 | 975 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,199 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 104.0 gflops | 2x 2,289 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 40 | 2x 1536 |
| Texture fill rate | 10.4 GTexel / s | 2x 95.36 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Transistor count | 392 million | 3,540 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
| Memory type | eDRAM | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 2x 160.0 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with others
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1000
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X2300
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
ATIRadeon HD 2600 XT
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3430
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
AMDFirePro M5100
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
