Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs GeForce 8800 Ultra

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8800 Ultra with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.

8800 Ultra
2007, $829
512 MB GDDR3, 171 Watt
1.54
Iris Xe MAX Graphics
2020
4 GB LPDDR4X, 25 Watt
4.31
+180%

MAX Graphics outperforms 8800 Ultra by a whopping 180% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1022728
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency0.7013.34
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameG80DG1
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date2 May 2007 (19 years ago)31 October 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$829 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores612768
Core clock speed612 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors681 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)171 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate39.1779.20
Floating-point processing power0.3871 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs2424
TMUs3248
L2 Cache96 KB1024 KB
L3 Cacheno data4 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Length270 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1080 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth103.7 GB/s68.26 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

8800 Ultra 1.54
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 4.31
+180%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

8800 Ultra 642
Samples: 41
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1797
+180%
Samples: 9

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD9−10
−200%
27
+200%
1440p7−8
−186%
20
+186%
4K5−6
−220%
16
+220%

Cost per frame, $

1080p92.11no data
1440p118.43no data
4K165.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how 8800 Ultra and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 200% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 186% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 220% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.54 4.31
Recency 2 May 2007 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 171 Watt 25 Watt

Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 180% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 800% more advanced lithography process, and 584% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 Ultra in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8800 Ultra is a desktop graphics card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 35 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 Ultra on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 292 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8800 Ultra or Iris Xe MAX Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.