Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two direct comparisons between the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050. In both tests, the NVIDIA part takes a commanding lead, and the margin is substantial enough to define the competitive landscape between these two entirely different classes of hardware.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1050 scores 15,233 against the Iris Pro’s 5,042. That is a delta of 66.9% in favor of NVIDIA. The Iris Pro is not merely trailing; it is being outclassed by a factor of roughly three. This is the kind of gap that separates an integrated graphics solution from a dedicated discrete GPU, even when that discrete GPU is itself an entry-level model from NVIDIA’s Pascal generation.

The Vulkan result tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower gap. The GTX 1050 posts 8,995, while the Iris Pro manages 3,677. The delta here is 59.1% in NVIDIA’s favor. Vulkan is a lower-level API that tends to reward hardware with dedicated resources and modern architecture, and the data reflects that: the GTX 1050’s advantage is still overwhelming, but the Iris Pro’s relative performance in Vulkan is slightly less disastrous than in OpenCL.

The win count is clean: two for the GTX 1050, zero for the Iris Pro. There is no benchmark in the head-to-head set where Intel’s integrated part comes out ahead. That does not mean the Iris Pro is without merit, but in raw compute throughput, it is outmatched by a wide margin.

Looking at the broader database context, the Iris Pro’s average benchmark score is 4,360, which places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (average 4,335, delta 0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (average 4,388, delta -0.6%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M (average 4,411, delta -1.2%). The Iris Pro sits in a strange neighborhood: it is within 1.5% of an RTX 4070 variant in this particular metric, which is almost certainly a quirk of the benchmark’s weighting, not a reflection of real-world gaming parity. Still, the data places the Iris Pro in the low-to-mid tier of the database.

The GTX 1050, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3,629, which lands it in the 21st percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (average 3,616, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (average 3,649, delta -0.5%), and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (average 3,596, delta 0.9%). The GTX 1050’s average score is actually lower than the Iris Pro’s average, which seems counterintuitive given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy arises because the GTX 1050’s benchmark suite includes several Passmark tests with very low scores (DirectX 9 at 83, DirectX 10 at 24, DirectX 11 at 38, DirectX 12 at 20) that drag the average down. The Iris Pro only has two benchmark entries, both in Geekbench, which are relatively strong for an integrated part.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is clear: when both parts are measured on the same tests, the GTX 1050 is decisively faster. The average score disparity is a statistical artifact of different test sets, not a reflection of actual competitive performance.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is the superior performer in every direct comparison recorded. The OpenCL gap of 66.9% and the Vulkan gap of 59.1% are not marginal differences; they represent a full performance tier of separation. The GTX 1050 is a discrete GPU with its own memory subsystem, dedicated cooling, and a modern Pascal architecture. The Iris Pro is an integrated graphics processor sharing system memory and relying on the host platform for bandwidth.

For anyone choosing between these two, the GTX 1050 is the obvious pick for compute-heavy workloads, gaming, or any task that stresses the GPU. The benchmark results show a minimum lead of 59% in Vulkan, and that is not a gap that software optimization can close. The Iris Pro’s advantage, if any, lies in its power efficiency: it carries a 45 W TDP versus the GTX 1050’s 75 W, and it requires no additional power connectors. But the database does not record any performance test where that efficiency translates into a win.

The GTX 1050 also offers a richer feature set in the API department: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Iris Pro’s DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 versus 4.3, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.0. The Iris Pro supports Vulkan 1.0, which is functional but lacks the later refinements. The GTX 1050’s Vulkan score is 2.4 times higher, which suggests the hardware is better suited to modern low-level APIs.

The verdict is not close. The GTX 1050 wins on raw performance, API support, and memory bandwidth. The Iris Pro wins on power draw and the convenience of being integrated into the CPU. If the choice is between these two as the primary graphics solution, the database says pick the GTX 1050.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 wins in every recorded benchmark, but it is worth examining where each part’s strengths lie in a broader context.

The GTX 1050’s wins are rooted in its hardware: 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Iris Pro has 320 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 4 ROPs. That 8x difference in ROPs is stark and explains why the GTX 1050 achieves a pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s against the Iris Pro’s 4.60 GPixel/s. The GTX 1050 also has a texture rate of 58.20 GTexel/s versus 46.00 GTexel/s, a 26.5% advantage. The FP32 compute is 1.862 TFLOPS versus 736.0 GFLOPS, a 2.5x advantage.

The memory subsystem is another decisive factor. The GTX 1050 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as “System Dependent.” In practice, that means the Iris Pro’s memory performance is entirely at the mercy of the host system’s RAM configuration, while the GTX 1050 has predictable, dedicated bandwidth.

The Iris Pro’s strengths are not in performance but in integration and power. At 45 W TDP, it draws 30 W less than the GTX 1050’s 75 W. It also occupies no expansion slot, being an IGP, whereas the GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card. For a small form factor system or a laptop, the Iris Pro is the only option of the two, since the GTX 1050 requires a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and physical space. The Iris Pro’s bus interface is the Ring Bus, which ties it directly to the CPU, eliminating the need for a separate GPU socket.

The GTX 1050’s production status is end-of-life, as is the Iris Pro’s, but the GTX 1050 has a defined predecessor (GeForce 900) and successor (GeForce 20), indicating a clear product lifecycle. The Iris Pro has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 has an average benchmark score of 4,360, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 has an average of 3,629. However, this is misleading because the GTX 1050 has a much larger benchmark suite, including several low-scoring Passmark tests, while the Iris Pro only has two Geekbench entries.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1050 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1050 scores 15,233 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Iris Pro’s 5,042, giving NVIDIA a 66.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Iris Pro support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the Iris Pro supports Vulkan 1.0. The GTX 1050 supports Vulkan 1.4, and in the Vulkan benchmark, the GTX 1050 scores 8,995 versus 3,677 for the Iris Pro, a 59.1% lead.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The GTX 1050 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, exactly double the Iris Pro’s 320. The GTX 1050 also has 32 ROPs versus the Iris Pro’s 4, and both have 40 TMUs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Iris Pro has a TDP of 45 W, while the GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 W. The GTX 1050 requires no power connectors and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is built on the Haswell GT3e chip, using Intel’s Generation 7.5 architecture on a 22 nm process node. It is an integrated graphics processor, meaning it shares the CPU’s thermal envelope and memory subsystem. The GTX 1050 is built on NVIDIA’s GP107 chip, using the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process node fabricated by Samsung. Pascal is a discrete GPU architecture designed for dedicated graphics cards, with its own memory and power delivery.

The process node difference is significant: 22 nm versus 14 nm. The smaller node allows the GTX 1050 to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The Iris Pro’s transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but the architectural intent is clear. Haswell’s GT3e was Intel’s attempt to bring competitive integrated graphics to the mainstream, while Pascal was NVIDIA’s high-efficiency discrete architecture for the entry-level segment.

The memory architecture could not be more different. The Iris Pro uses system shared memory, with no dedicated VRAM, no dedicated bus width, and bandwidth that is entirely dependent on the host system. The GTX 1050 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 112.1 GB/s bandwidth. This is the single biggest architectural differentiator, and it explains why the GTX 1050’s pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s) is over ten times higher than the Iris Pro’s (4.60 GPixel/s). The Iris Pro’s ROP count of 4 is a severe bottleneck, while the GTX 1050’s 32 ROPs allow for much higher fill rates.

The API support also reflects the architectural gap. The Iris Pro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher API versions on the GTX 1050 indicate better support for modern rendering techniques and lower-level access to hardware.

The GTX 1050 has a dual-slot form factor, a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and three display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a). The Iris Pro is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The GTX 1050’s power connector is listed as “None,” meaning it draws all its power from the PCIe slot, while the Iris Pro has no power connectors at all because it is integrated into the CPU package.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not recorded | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 200 MHz | 1354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1150 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 640 |

| TMUs | 40 | 40 |

| ROPs | 4 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.600 GPixel/s | 46.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.00 GTexel/s | 58.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 736.0 GFLOPS | 1.862 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-06-02 | 2016-10-24 |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Not recorded | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 109 USD |

The clock speeds alone tell a story: the GTX 1050’s base clock of 1354 MHz is nearly seven times higher than the Iris Pro’s 200 MHz base. Even accounting for the Iris Pro’s boost to 1150 MHz, the GTX 1050’s boost of 1455 MHz is still 26.5% higher. The GTX 1050’s FP16 performance is recorded at 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the Iris Pro’s FP16 is not recorded. The GTX 1050 also has a physically defined length of 145 mm (5.7 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the Iris Pro has no physical dimensions because it lives on the CPU die.