GeForce 720A vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	478	963
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	22.72	3.34
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	GF117
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	1 July 2014 (10 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	96	96
Core clock speed	400 MHz	775 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	938 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	33 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	15.01
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.1801 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	8
TMUs	no data	16

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 2.0 x16

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	1 GB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	16 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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

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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12_1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
1440p	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
4K	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Elden Ring	21 +600%	3−4 −600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +500%	5−6 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	13 +550%	2−3 −550%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +533%	6−7 −533%
Metro Exodus	29 +480%	5−6 −480%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Valorant	26 +550%	4−5 −550%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +500%	5−6 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	12 +500%	2−3 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Dota 2	28 +600%	4−5 −600%
Elden Ring	22 +633%	3−4 −633%
Far Cry 5	31 +520%	5−6 −520%
Fortnite	50−55 +500%	9−10 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +500%	5−6 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Metro Exodus	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +500%	12−14 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Valorant	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
World of Tanks	96 +500%	16−18 −500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 +500%	5−6 −500%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Dota 2	47 +488%	8−9 −488%
Far Cry 5	34 +580%	5−6 −580%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +500%	4−5 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +500%	12−14 −500%
Valorant	23 +667%	3−4 −667%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Elden Ring	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Grand Theft Auto V	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +543%	7−8 −543%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
World of Tanks	65−70 +570%	10−11 −570%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	3	0−1
Far Cry 5	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Forza Horizon 4	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Valorant	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Elden Ring	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Grand Theft Auto V	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 +700%	1−2 −700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Fortnite	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GeForce 720A compete in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 575% faster in 1080p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 700% faster in 1440p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1000% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.24	1.60
Recency	15 August 2020	1 July 2014
Chip lithography	10 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	33 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 477.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 17.9% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 720A in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.