UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) vs GeForce GTX 275
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 275 with UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), including specs and performance data.
GTX 275 outperforms UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 725 | 759 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.37 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 8.64 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 28 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 240 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 633 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 12-25 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 50.64 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6739 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 28 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1134 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 127.0 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 | Two Dual Link DVI | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 14−16
+7.7%
| 13
−7.7%
|
| 4K | 10−12
+11.1%
| 9
−11.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 17.79 | no data |
| 4K | 24.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTX 275 and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) compete in popular games:
- GTX 275 is 8% faster in 1080p
- GTX 275 is 11% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.50 | 3.06 |
| Recency | 15 January 2009 | 28 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 12 Watt |
GTX 275 has a 14.4% higher aggregate performance score.
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 450% more advanced lithography process, and 1725% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 275 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 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.
