Iris Graphics 550 vs Radeon Pro WX 7100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 7100 with Iris Graphics 550, including specs and performance data.
Pro 7100 outperforms Graphics 550 by a whopping 428% 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 | 337 | 787 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.22 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.00 | 18.05 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Skylake GT3e |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 September 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | 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 | 2304 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1188 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1243 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 179.0 | 48.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.728 TFLOPS | 0.768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 6 |
| TMUs | 144 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 x16 | Ring Bus |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 4x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
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 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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.
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 | 100−110
+400%
| 20
−400%
|
| 1440p | 140−150
+400%
| 28
−400%
|
| 4K | 260−270
+420%
| 50
−420%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.71 | no data |
| 4K | 3.07 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+563%
|
16
−563%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+715%
|
13
−715%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+353%
|
16−18
−353%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+373%
|
14−16
−373%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+184%
|
50−55
−184%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+715%
|
12−14
−715%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+322%
|
54
−322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+286%
|
28
−286%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+353%
|
16−18
−353%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+1067%
|
6
−1067%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+1233%
|
3
−1233%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+373%
|
14−16
−373%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+550%
|
8
−550%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+184%
|
50−55
−184%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+500%
|
12−14
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+332%
|
25
−332%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+353%
|
16−18
−353%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+373%
|
14−16
−373%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+373%
|
10−12
−373%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+184%
|
50−55
−184%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+386%
|
28
−386%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+457%
|
30−33
−457%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+403%
|
30−35
−403%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+617%
|
6−7
−617%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+127%
|
14−16
−127%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+513%
|
16−18
−513%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+491%
|
10−12
−491%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Palworld | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
This is how Pro WX 7100 and Iris Graphics 550 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 7100 is 400% faster in 1080p
- Pro WX 7100 is 400% faster in 1440p
- Pro WX 7100 is 420% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 7100 is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro WX 7100 surpassed Iris Graphics 550 in all 56 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.49 | 3.50 |
| Recency | 10 November 2016 | 1 September 2015 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
Pro WX 7100 has a 428% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Iris Graphics 550, on the other hand, has 767% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Graphics 550 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 7100 is a workstation graphics card while Iris Graphics 550 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.
