Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs GeForce G 103M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G 103M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MAX Graphics outperforms G 103M by a whopping 3040% 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 | 1484 | 685 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.47 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | G98 | DG1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (16 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (5 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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 24 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
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 | DDR2 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 68.26 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 27 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 20 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 16 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−150%
|
60−65
+150%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−645%
|
80−85
+645%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−400%
|
40
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−580%
|
34
+580%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−150%
|
60−65
+150%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−375%
|
38
+375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−150%
|
60−65
+150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 2300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics performs better in 27 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 4.71 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 10 nm |
Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 3040% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 550% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G 103M 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.
