RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs by a whopping 507% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 525 | 72 |
| Place by popularity | 47 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 81.28 |
| Power efficiency | 18.84 | 45.72 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | AD107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 80 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
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 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 256.0 GB/s |
| 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 | no data | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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 | 19
−479%
| 110−120
+479%
|
| 1440p | 10
−500%
| 60−65
+500%
|
| 4K | 14
−471%
| 80−85
+471%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.90 |
| 1440p | no data | 10.82 |
| 4K | no data | 8.11 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
−471%
|
80−85
+471%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 19
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−477%
|
75−80
+477%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
−471%
|
120−130
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−492%
|
290−300
+492%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
−505%
|
260−270
+505%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38
−505%
|
230−240
+505%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 62
−465%
|
350−400
+465%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
−471%
|
120−130
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−492%
|
290−300
+492%
|
| Hitman 3 | 15
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
−505%
|
260−270
+505%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
−493%
|
160−170
+493%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24
−483%
|
140−150
+483%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 49
−492%
|
290−300
+492%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−479%
|
110−120
+479%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−492%
|
290−300
+492%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−491%
|
65−70
+491%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
−445%
|
300−310
+445%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−471%
|
80−85
+471%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
−491%
|
65−70
+491%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−493%
|
160−170
+493%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12
−491%
|
65−70
+491%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
−496%
|
280−290
+496%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−477%
|
75−80
+477%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 479% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 500% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 471% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.57 | 45.92 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 12 February 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 70 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has 150% lower power consumption.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 506.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
