Iris Plus Graphics vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Iris Plus Graphics, including specs and performance data.
PRO 2100 outperforms Plus Graphics by a small 7% 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 | 712 | 731 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.03 | 21.97 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 11.0 (2019−2021) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | Ice Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (9 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | 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 | 512 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 32.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 1.024 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+6.7%
|
75−80
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+12.5%
|
40−45
−12.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.54 | 4.26 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has a 7% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Plus Graphics, on the other hand, has a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 133% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Iris Plus Graphics.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while Iris Plus Graphics 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.
