Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce GT 230M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 230M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 230M
2009
Up to 1 GB GDDR3, 23 Watt
0.55

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms GT 230M by a whopping 1276% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1213525
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Power efficiency1.6518.69
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGT216Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 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 cores4880
Core clock speed500 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors486 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate8.000no data
Floating-point processing power0.1056 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops158no data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speedUp to 600 (DDR2), Up to 800 (GDDR3), Up to 1066 (GDDR3) MHzno data
Memory bandwidth16 (DDR2), 25 (DDR3)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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIno data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIHDAno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12_1
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 230M 0.55
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.57
+1276%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 230M 2363
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21729
+820%

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 HD1−2
−1800%
19
+1800%
1440p0−110
4K1−2
−1300%
14
+1300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−367%
14
+367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−375%
18−20
+375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−400%
14−16
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−220%
16
+220%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−291%
40−45
+291%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−317%
24−27
+317%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−107%
62
+107%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−375%
18−20
+375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−400%
14−16
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10
+233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−200%
15
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−291%
40−45
+291%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−300%
24
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−120%
21−24
+120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−63.3%
49
+63.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−375%
18−20
+375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−400%
14−16
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8
+167%
Hitman 3 5−6
−140%
12
+140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−45.5%
16
+45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−233%
20
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−10%
11
+10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 7−8
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−4600%
45−50
+4600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+0%
19
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 38
+0%
38
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+0%
16
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+0%
16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GT 230M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 1800% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 1300% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 4600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 7.57
Recency 15 June 2009 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 28 Watt

GT 230M has 21.7% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 1276.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 GeForce GT 230M
GeForce GT 230M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 230M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 901 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.