ATI Radeon HD 4670 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon HD 4670, including specs and performance data.
Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms HD 4670 by a whopping 840% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 559 | 1203 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 23.82 | 1.20 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | RV730 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (6 years ago) | 10 September 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 96 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 59 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 193 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 32 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 Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 HD | 26
+1200%
| 2−3 |
| 1440p | 15
+1400%
| 1−2 |
| 4K | 12
+1100%
| 1−2 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.50 |
| 1440p | no data | 67.00 |
| 4K | no data | 67.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+850%
|
2−3 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 28
+1300%
|
2−3 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 20
+900%
|
2−3 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 41
+925%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+1200%
|
2−3 |
| Fortnite | 30
+900%
|
3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4 |
| Valorant | 124
+933%
|
12−14 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 96
+860%
|
10−11 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 51
+920%
|
5−6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+1150%
|
2−3 |
| Fortnite | 21
+950%
|
2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+1600%
|
1−2 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 11
+1000%
|
1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 15
+1400%
|
1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+900%
|
3−4 |
| Valorant | 112
+1020%
|
10−11 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+900%
|
3−4 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 47
+840%
|
5−6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+1050%
|
2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2 |
| Valorant | 23
+1050%
|
2−3 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 15
+1400%
|
1−2 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+843%
|
7−8 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5 |
| Valorant | 85−90
+856%
|
9−10 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+1100%
|
1−2 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20
+900%
|
2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and ATI HD 4670 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1200% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1400% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.55 | 0.91 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 10 September 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 59 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 840% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 82% more advanced lithography process, and 53% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4670 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 4670 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
