Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M
Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M 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), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 17% lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 35 Watt
- Around 47% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1191 vs 811
- Around 97% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 399 vs 203
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 May 2013 vs 3 September 2010 |
Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 35 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1191 vs 811 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 vs 203 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 vs 3274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 vs 3274 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M
- 5.9x more core clock speed: 1180 MHz vs 200 MHz
- Around 2% higher texture fill rate: 10.6 billion / sec vs 10.4 GTexel / s
- 3.6x more pipelines: 144 vs 40
- 3.3x better floating-point performance: 339.8 gflops vs 104.0 gflops
- 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12379 vs 5081
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1180 MHz vs 200 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 10.6 billion / sec vs 10.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 144 vs 40 |
Floating-point performance | 339.8 gflops vs 104.0 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 12379 vs 5081 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
Name | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1191 | 811 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 | 203 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2095 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2095 | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5081 | 12379 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 | 3274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 | 3274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Fermi |
Code name | Haswell GT3e | GF106 |
Launch date | 27 May 2013 | 3 September 2010 |
Place in performance rating | 642 | 865 |
Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1180 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 104.0 gflops | 339.8 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 40 | 144 |
Texture fill rate | 10.4 GTexel / s | 10.6 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 35 Watt |
Transistor count | 392 million | 1,170 million |
CUDA cores | 144 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | large |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
Memory type | eDRAM | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 60.0 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 192 Bit | |
Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus | ||
SLI |