Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs FirePro W8100

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W8100 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W8100
2014
8 GB GDDR5, 220 Watt
18.63
+107%

W8100 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking303484
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.9522.57
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameHawaiiTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 June 2014 (10 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 cores256096
Core clock speed824 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)220 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate131.8no data
Floating-point processing power4.219 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs160no 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width512 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth320 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x SDIno data
StereoOutput3D+-
DisplayPort count4no data
Dual-link DVI support+-
HD сomponent video output+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 HD55−60
+104%
27
−104%
1440p30−35
+87.5%
16
−87.5%
4K24−27
+100%
12
−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 18
+0%
18
+0%
Battlefield 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 124
+0%
124
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+0%
12
+0%
Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+0%
96
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 51
+0%
51
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 112
+0%
112
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 23
+0%
23
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
+0%
8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how FirePro W8100 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W8100 is 104% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro W8100 is 88% faster in 1440p
  • FirePro W8100 is 100% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.63 9.00
Recency 23 June 2014 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 220 Watt 28 Watt

FirePro W8100 has a 107% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 685.7% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W8100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W8100 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W8100
FirePro W8100
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 18 votes

Rate FirePro W8100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1005 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W8100 or Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.