Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce FX 5950 Ultra with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms 5950 Ultra by a whopping 5029% 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 | 1486 | 584 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 92 |
| Power efficiency | 0.15 | 19.69 |
| Architecture | Rankine (2003−2005) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | NV38 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 October 2003 (22 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | no data | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 135 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 74 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.800 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 | AGP 8x | no data |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x Molex | 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 | DDR | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 475 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 30.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0a | 12_1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | N/A | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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 | -0−1 | 18 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 9 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 14 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+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 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+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 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
+0%
|
14
+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
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| 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 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High
| 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
| 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%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.14 | 7.18 |
| Recency | 23 October 2003 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 74 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 5028.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1200% more advanced lithography process, and 164.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce FX 5950 Ultra is a desktop graphics card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 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.
