Radeon Pro V520 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs with Radeon Pro V520, including specs and performance data.
Pro V520 outperforms Graphics G7 80EUs by a whopping 307% 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 | 589 | 217 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 19.80 | 10.03 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Navi 12 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 1 December 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 | 80 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 230.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 7.373 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 144 |
| L2 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 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
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 | 18
−289%
| 70−75
+289%
|
| 1440p | 9
−289%
| 35−40
+289%
|
| 4K | 14
−293%
| 55−60
+293%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
−287%
|
120−130
+287%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
−300%
|
80−85
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−286%
|
170−180
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−294%
|
130−140
+294%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
−305%
|
85−90
+305%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−290%
|
300−310
+290%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
−291%
|
90−95
+291%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−285%
|
450−500
+285%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
−285%
|
150−160
+285%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−286%
|
170−180
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−294%
|
130−140
+294%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20
−300%
|
80−85
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−290%
|
300−310
+290%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 23
−291%
|
90−95
+291%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
−289%
|
140−150
+289%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
−289%
|
70−75
+289%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−294%
|
130−140
+294%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−290%
|
300−310
+290%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
−286%
|
170−180
+286%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−293%
|
220−230
+293%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−290%
|
160−170
+290%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−266%
|
300−310
+266%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−289%
|
70−75
+289%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−305%
|
150−160
+305%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs and Pro V520 compete in popular games:
- Pro V520 is 289% faster in 1080p
- Pro V520 is 289% faster in 1440p
- Pro V520 is 293% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.20 | 29.31 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 1 December 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 225 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has 703.6% lower power consumption.
Pro V520, on the other hand, has a 307.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro V520 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 graphics card while Radeon Pro V520 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
