Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs ATI Radeon HD 5770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5770 with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.
MAX Graphics outperforms HD 5770 by a small 5% 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 | 748 | 731 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.93 | 13.34 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | Juniper | DG1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 October 2009 (16 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | no data |
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 | 800 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 34.00 | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.36 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 40 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 4 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 208 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 68.26 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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:
| 900p | 24
+0%
| 24−27
+0%
|
| Full HD | 50
+85.2%
| 27
−85.2%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−11.1%
| 20
+11.1%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−14.3%
| 16
+14.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.18 | no data |
| 1440p | 8.83 | no data |
| 4K | 11.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−138%
|
38
+138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−117%
|
26
+117%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−41.7%
|
34
+41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−119%
|
35
+119%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−4.1%
|
75−80
+4.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−8.1%
|
40
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−108%
|
25
+108%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−29.2%
|
31
+29.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20
+53.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−157%
|
18
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−183%
|
34
+183%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−106%
|
33
+106%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−2.7%
|
38
+2.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−100%
|
24
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−50%
|
18
+50%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−3.6%
|
55−60
+3.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+9.1%
|
22
−9.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−4.9%
|
40−45
+4.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20
+53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 5770 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:
- A tie in 900p
- ATI HD 5770 is 85% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 11% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 14% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the ATI HD 5770 is 9% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 183% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 5770 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics performs better in 41 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.09 | 4.31 |
| Recency | 13 October 2009 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 25 Watt |
Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 332% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 5770 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5770 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.
