Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 386 | 484 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 22.57 |
| Architecture | no data | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | no data | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 28 Watt |
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.
| Shared memory | + | + |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12_1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 28
+3.7%
| 27
−3.7%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
+31.3%
| 16
−31.3%
|
| 4K | 16−18
+33.3%
| 12
−33.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+26.9%
|
26
−26.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+53.3%
|
15
−53.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+42.1%
|
19
−42.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18
−83.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+36.6%
|
41
−36.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
13
−76.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16
−68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+69.2%
|
26
−69.2%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+147%
|
30
−147%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+42.1%
|
35−40
−42.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+54.5%
|
22
−54.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+48.4%
|
30−35
−48.4%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−11.7%
|
124
+11.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+175%
|
12
−175%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+60%
|
35
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12
−91.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+87.5%
|
96
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+108%
|
13
−108%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+66.7%
|
51
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+76%
|
25
−76%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+252%
|
21
−252%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+42.1%
|
35−40
−42.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+188%
|
17
−188%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+73.3%
|
15
−73.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+48.4%
|
30−35
−48.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30
−13.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−0.9%
|
112
+0.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+86.7%
|
30
−86.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+145%
|
11
−145%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+80.9%
|
47
−80.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+91.3%
|
23
−91.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+42.1%
|
35−40
−42.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+54.5%
|
22
−54.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+48.4%
|
30−35
−48.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+143%
|
14
−143%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+383%
|
23
−383%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+393%
|
15
−393%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+45.5%
|
65−70
−45.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+186%
|
7
−186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+143%
|
40−45
−143%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+40.2%
|
95−100
−40.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+75%
|
20−22
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7
−57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+200%
|
8
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12
−41.7%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+53.3%
|
45−50
−53.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+130%
|
20
−130%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 4% faster in 1080p
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 31% faster in 1440p
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 33% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 393% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 12% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 65 tests (97%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.39 | 9.00 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 10 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 48.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
