NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 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, 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- 5x more core clock speed: 999 MHz vs 200 MHz
- Around 2% higher boost clock speed: 1328 MHz vs 1300 MHz
- 5.1x more texture fill rate: 53.12 GTexel / s vs 10.4 GTexel / s
- 16x more pipelines: 640 vs 40
- 16.3x better floating-point performance: 1,700 gflops vs 104.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 22 nm
- 3.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4044 vs 1191
- 2.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12690 vs 5081
- 3.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6614 vs 2095
- 3.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6614 vs 2095
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 3 January 2018 vs 27 May 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 999 MHz vs 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1328 MHz vs 1300 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 53.12 GTexel / s vs 10.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 40 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,700 gflops vs 104.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 22 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4044 vs 1191 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12690 vs 5081 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6614 vs 2095 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6614 vs 2095 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 39% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 399 vs 287
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3285 vs 1491
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3285 vs 1491
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 399 vs 287 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3285 vs 1491 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3285 vs 1491 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
GPU 2: Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4044 | 1191 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 287 | 399 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12690 | 5081 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6614 | 2095 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1491 | 3285 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1341 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6614 | 2095 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1491 | 3285 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1341 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2076 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Generation 7.5 |
| Code name | GP107 | Haswell GT3e |
| Launch date | 3 January 2018 | 27 May 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 701 | 644 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1328 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 999 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 1,700 gflops | 104.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 40 |
| Texture fill rate | 53.12 GTexel / s | 10.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,300 million | 392 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.1 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | eDRAM |
| Shared memory | 0 | 1 |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce FX 5100
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1050
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 140 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 750 Ti
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M
