Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce MX250

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX250 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce MX250
2019
2 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
6.21

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms MX250 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking589537
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency42.8518.56
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGP108BTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date20 February 2019 (5 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 cores38480
Core clock speed937 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate24.91no data
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs24no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x4no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1502 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth48.06 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependentno 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 (12_1)12_1
Shader Model6.7 (6.4)no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-
CUDA6.1-

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.

GeForce MX250 6.21
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.53
+21.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce MX250 4633
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 5332
+15.1%

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.

GeForce MX250 16488
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21729
+31.8%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce MX250 3660
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 4010
+9.6%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX250 21545
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21931
+1.8%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX250 235421
+41.4%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 166479

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX250 1103
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 1180
+7%

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GeForce MX250 44
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 44
+0.5%

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 HD23
+15%
20
−15%
1440p8−9
−25%
10
+25%
4K10−12
−40%
14
+40%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 27
+17.4%
23
−17.4%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+18.2%
11
−18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 20
+25%
16
−25%
Battlefield 5 24
−8.3%
26
+8.3%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+44.4%
9
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
Far Cry 5 19
−5.3%
20
+5.3%
Fortnite 55
+27.9%
40−45
−27.9%
Forza Horizon 4 31
−3.2%
30−35
+3.2%
Forza Horizon 5 16
+14.3%
14
−14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 28
+7.7%
24−27
−7.7%
Valorant 118
+55.3%
75−80
−55.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7
−71.4%
12
+71.4%
Battlefield 5 19
−21.1%
23
+21.1%
Counter-Strike 2 5
−100%
10
+100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−16.3%
110−120
+16.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+20%
10
−20%
Dota 2 64
+64.1%
39
−64.1%
Far Cry 5 17
−11.8%
19
+11.8%
Fortnite 25
−72%
40−45
+72%
Forza Horizon 4 24
−33.3%
30−35
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+115%
13
−115%
Metro Exodus 7
−71.4%
12
+71.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 23
−13%
24−27
+13%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
−4.8%
22
+4.8%
Valorant 115
+51.3%
75−80
−51.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14
−64.3%
23
+64.3%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+160%
5
−160%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+33.3%
9
−33.3%
Dota 2 57
+58.3%
36
−58.3%
Far Cry 5 16
−12.5%
18
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 16
−100%
30−35
+100%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+55.6%
9
−55.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 19
−36.8%
24−27
+36.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+9.1%
11
−9.1%
Valorant 65−70
−13.4%
75−80
+13.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 22
−95.5%
40−45
+95.5%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
−22.2%
55−60
+22.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+16.7%
6
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−5.4%
35−40
+5.4%
Valorant 65−70
−22.7%
80−85
+22.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6
+20%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10
+11.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 1−2
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Metro Exodus 0−1 2−3
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Valorant 30−33
−20%
35−40
+20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+31.3%
16
−31.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

This is how GeForce MX250 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is 15% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 25% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 40% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 160% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 19 tests (30%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 43 tests (67%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.21 7.53
Recency 20 February 2019 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 28 Watt

GeForce MX250 has 180% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 21.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX250 in performance tests.

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 MX250
GeForce MX250
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.


3.6 1580 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 946 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 GeForce MX250 or Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.