Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Performance Spectrum - GPU

Iris Pro Graphics 5200

30

1,172

0.0%

7,869

+571.4%

GeForce GTX 880M SLI

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

GeForce GTX 960

GeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

GeForce GTX 1080

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is positioned at rank #403 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Iris Pro Graphics 5200

#392

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1390%

#394

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1260%

#395

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1257%

#399

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1143%

#400

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1135%

#402

Mobility Radeon HD 5000

MSRP: $99|Avg: $20

100%

#403

Iris Pro Graphics 5200

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

100%

#405

Radeon RX Vega 10 Ryzen 7 3700C

MSRP: $150|Avg: $50

99%

#406

Radeon HD 8650G + 7700M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

96%

#407

Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire

MSRP: $800|Avg: $200

96%

#408

GeForce GTX 285M SLI

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

94%

#409

Radeon R7 M260X

MSRP: $139|Avg: $35

93%

#410

Radeon HD 8570D + HD 6570 Dual

MSRP: $120|Avg: $25

93%

#411

Intel UHD Graphics 615

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

92%

#412

Radeon R7 A365

MSRP: $109|Avg: $55

92%

#413

Radeon 3015e

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

92%

#414

Radeon HD 7620G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

91%

#415

Radeon R9 M390X

MSRP: $550|Avg: $120

91%

#416

Arc 8-Core iGPU

MSRP: $503|Avg: $400

89%

#417

Mobility Radeon HD 4670

MSRP: $67|Avg: $20

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 571.4% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (4 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Iris Pro Graphics 5200.

Insight	Iris Pro Graphics 5200	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-571.4%)	✅Leading raw performance (+571.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Generation 7.5 (2013))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100+%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $40), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 258.1% better value per dollar than the Iris Pro Graphics 5200.

Insight	Iris Pro Graphics 5200	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+258.1%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($40)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Iris Pro Graphics 5200 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and GeForce GTX 1650

Iris Pro Graphics 5200

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in May 27 2013. It features the Generation 7.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 200 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 320 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 22 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,172 points.

GeForce GTX 1650

The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 scores 1,172 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 571.4%. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on Generation 7.5 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 22 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 320 (Iris Pro Graphics 5200) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.768 TFLOPS (Iris Pro Graphics 5200) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	Iris Pro Graphics 5200	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	1,172	7,869+571%
Architecture	Generation 7.5	Turing
Process Node	22 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	320	896+180%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.768 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+289%
Boost Clock	1200 MHz	1665 MHz+39%
ROPs	4	32+700%
TMUs	40	56+40%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Iris Pro Graphics 5200	GeForce GTX 1650
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 128-bit.

Feature	Iris Pro Graphics 5200	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	Shared System RAM	4 GB
Memory Type	Shared	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	System	128 GB/s
Bus Width	System	128-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 draws 30W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 85.7% difference. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Iris Pro Graphics 5200) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Integrated vs None.

Feature	Iris Pro Graphics 5200	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	30W-60%	75W
Recommended PSU	1W-100%	300W
Power Connector	Integrated	None
Length	—	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	70°C
Perf/Watt	39.1	104.9+168%

💰

Value Analysis

The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Iris Pro Graphics 5200 costs 46.7% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 29.3 (Iris Pro Graphics 5200) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 258% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).