Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GRID K260Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID K260Q with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
GRID K260Q outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 527 | 530 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.96 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.35 | 18.61 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $937 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1536 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 95.36 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.289 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 128 | 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 | no data |
| Width | IGP | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
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 | 18−20
−5.6%
| 19
+5.6%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
+0%
| 10
+0%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−7.1%
| 15
+7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 52.06 | no data |
| 1440p | 93.70 | no data |
| 4K | 66.93 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how GRID K260Q and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 6% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 7% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.67 | 7.57 |
| Recency | 28 June 2013 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 28 Watt |
GRID K260Q has a 1.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 703.6% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GRID K260Q and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs.
Be aware that GRID K260Q is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
