- Home
- Processors
- Videocards
- Home
- / Videocards
- / Compare videocards
- / NVIDIA NVS 5200M vs Intel HD Graphics 4000
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.
NVIDIA NVS 5200M 
vs Intel HD Graphics 4000 
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
| Specifications (specs) |
| Launch date | 17 September 2012 vs 14 May 2012 |
| Core clock speed | 672 MHz vs 650 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 10.75 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 258.0 gflops vs 33.6 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt vs 45 Watt |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 507 vs 347 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2130 vs 538 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 189.966 vs 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.643 vs 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.851 vs 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2715 vs 2392 |
| 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
| Specifications (specs) |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 40 nm |
| Benchmarks |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 188 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 vs 5.829 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 vs 0.539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 vs 222 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 vs 1099 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 vs 222 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 vs 1099 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA NVS 5200M GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000
| 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) | | |
| Name | NVIDIA NVS 5200M | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 507 | 347 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 188 | 194 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2130 | 538 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.829 | 8.712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 189.966 | 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.539 | 0.931 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.643 | 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.851 | 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 222 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1099 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2715 | 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 222 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1099 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2715 | 2392 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA NVS 5200M | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
Essentials |
| Architecture | Fermi | Generation 7.0 |
| Code name | GF108 | Ivy Bridge GT2 |
| Launch date | 17 September 2012 | 14 May 2012 |
| Place in performance rating | 1513 | 1501 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
| Core clock speed | 672 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 258.0 gflops | 33.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 10.75 GTexel / s | 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 1,200 million |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz |
Video outputs and ports |
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
| Interface | MXM | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized |
API support |
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.0 |
Memory |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.12 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3140 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 1 |
Technologies |
| Quick Sync |
Navigation
Differences Compare benchmarks Compare specifications (specs)
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare
Compare NVIDIA NVS 5200M with others
NVIDIANVS 5200M vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 420M NVIDIANVS 5200M vs 
AMDRadeon HD 7650M NVIDIANVS 5200M vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 630 OEM NVIDIANVS 5200M vs NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M Mac Edition NVIDIANVS 5200M vs NVIDIAGeForce 800M NVIDIANVS 5200M vs NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2 About
AskGeek.io - Compare processors and videocards to choose the best.
Sections
Links
Language
English
Deutsch
Française
Español
Português
Русский © 2025, AskGeek.io