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
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
7.49
+0.9%

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 ranking535538
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.98no data
Power efficiency2.3418.61
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGK104Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date28 June 2013 (11 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$937 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores153680
Core clock speed745 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate95.36no data
Floating-point processing power2.289 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
WidthIGPno 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 amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

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 (11_0)12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA3.0-

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 HD18−21
−11.1%
20
+11.1%
1440p10−12
+0%
10
+0%
4K14−16
+0%
14
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p52.06no data
1440p93.70no data
4K66.93no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 16
+0%
16
+0%
Battlefield 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+0%
12
+0%
Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5
+0%
5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9
+0%
9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+0%
6
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+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 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 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 11% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.49 7.42
Recency 28 June 2013 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 28 Watt

GRID K260Q has a 0.9% 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.

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.


NVIDIA GRID K260Q
GRID K260Q
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K260Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 947 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID K260Q or Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.