Radeon Pro W6600M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
2020
28 Watt
7.11

Pro W6600M outperforms Graphics G7 80EUs by a whopping 280% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking584240
Place by popularity93not in top-100
Power efficiency19.6823.28
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeNavi 23
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date15 August 2020 (5 years ago)8 June 2021 (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 cores801792
Core clock speed400 MHz1224 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz2034 MHz
Number of transistorsno data11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rateno data227.8
Floating-point processing powerno data7.29 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28
L0 Cacheno data448 KB
L1 Cacheno data512 KB
L2 Cacheno data2 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data8 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 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 Connectorsno dataPortable Device Dependent

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.

DirectX12_112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1
Vulkan-1.3

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 HD18
−261%
65−70
+261%
1440p9
−233%
30−35
+233%
4K14
−257%
50−55
+257%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 31
−406%
150−160
+406%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
−336%
60−65
+336%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 26
−308%
100−110
+308%
Counter-Strike 2 24
−554%
150−160
+554%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
−408%
60−65
+408%
Escape from Tarkov 27−30
−255%
100−110
+255%
Far Cry 5 20
−350%
90−95
+350%
Fortnite 40−45
−198%
130−140
+198%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−241%
100−110
+241%
Forza Horizon 5 21
−319%
85−90
+319%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−323%
110−120
+323%
Valorant 75−80
−136%
180−190
+136%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 23
−361%
100−110
+361%
Counter-Strike 2 12
−1208%
150−160
+1208%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
−131%
270−280
+131%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
−510%
60−65
+510%
Dota 2 39
−233%
130−140
+233%
Escape from Tarkov 27−30
−255%
100−110
+255%
Far Cry 5 19
−374%
90−95
+374%
Fortnite 40−45
−198%
130−140
+198%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−241%
100−110
+241%
Forza Horizon 5 20
−340%
85−90
+340%
Grand Theft Auto V 14
−607%
95−100
+607%
Metro Exodus 12
−425%
60−65
+425%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−323%
110−120
+323%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
−291%
85−90
+291%
Valorant 75−80
−136%
180−190
+136%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 23
−361%
100−110
+361%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
−578%
60−65
+578%
Dota 2 36
−261%
130−140
+261%
Escape from Tarkov 27−30
−255%
100−110
+255%
Far Cry 5 18
−400%
90−95
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−241%
100−110
+241%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−323%
110−120
+323%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−682%
85−90
+682%
Valorant 75−80
−136%
180−190
+136%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
−198%
130−140
+198%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−343%
60−65
+343%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
−248%
190−200
+248%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
−783%
50−55
+783%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−443%
35−40
+443%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−327%
170−180
+327%
Valorant 80−85
−167%
210−220
+167%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
−407%
75−80
+407%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
−383%
27−30
+383%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
−357%
60−65
+357%
Far Cry 5 12
−433%
60−65
+433%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−329%
70−75
+329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
−360%
45−50
+360%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
−353%
65−70
+353%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−200%
50−55
+200%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−600%
40−45
+600%
Valorant 35−40
−349%
160−170
+349%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
−514%
40−45
+514%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%
Dota 2 16
−450%
85−90
+450%
Escape from Tarkov 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−371%
30−35
+371%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−308%
45−50
+308%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−343%
30−35
+343%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
−357%
30−35
+357%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6600M is 261% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W6600M is 233% faster in 1440p
  • Pro W6600M is 257% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro W6600M is 2800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro W6600M surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in all 64 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.11 27.03
Recency 15 August 2020 8 June 2021
Chip lithography 10 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 90 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has 221.4% lower power consumption.

Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has a 280.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6600M 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 W6600M is a mobile workstation one.

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.


Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
AMD Radeon Pro W6600M
Radeon Pro W6600M

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.


3.7 1095 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 4 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs or Radeon Pro W6600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.