NVIDIA NVS 5200M vs Intel HD Graphics 4000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA NVS 5200M and Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 NVIDIA NVS 5200M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 month(s) later
• Around 3% higher core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 650 MHz
• 2.6x more texture fill rate: 10.75 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s
• 6x more pipelines: 96 vs 16
• 7.7x better floating-point performance: 258.0 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
• Around 80% lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 45 Watt
• Around 46% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 507 vs 347
• 4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2130 vs 538
• Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 189.966 vs 155.638
• Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 9.643 vs 7.36
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.851 vs 12.009
• Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2715 vs 2392
• Around 14% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2715 vs 2392

Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000

• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 3% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 188
• Around 49% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 vs 5.829
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 vs 0.539
• 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 754 vs 222
• Around 36% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 vs 1099
• 3.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 754 vs 222
• Around 36% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 vs 1099

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA NVS 5200M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	507 347
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	188 194
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	2130 538
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.829 8.712
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	189.966 155.638
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.539 0.931
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	9.643 7.36
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	16.851 12.009
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	222 754
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1099 1492
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2715 2392
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	222 754
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1099 1492
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2715 2392

Compare specifications (specs)