GeForce G 103M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	479	1419
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	22.78	no data
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	G98
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	1 September 2009 (15 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	8
Core clock speed	400 MHz	640 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	no data
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	no 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 type	no data	DDR2
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	500 MHz
Shared memory	+	-

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

10.0

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.25
+5681%

G 103M 0.16

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3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution.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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 25978
+6998%

G 103M 366

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	-0−1
1440p	16	-0−1
4K	11	-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +900%	2−3 −900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +660%	5−6 −660%
Forza Horizon 5	22	0−1
Metro Exodus	29	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +325%	4−5 −325%
Valorant	26	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Dota 2	28	0−1
Far Cry 5	31 +417%	6−7 −417%
Fortnite	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30 +500%	5−6 −500%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	17	0−1
Metro Exodus	19	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +1340%	5−6 −1340%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Valorant	35−40	0−1
World of Tanks	96 +860%	10−11 −860%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Dota 2	47	0−1
Far Cry 5	34 +467%	6−7 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +380%	5−6 −380%
Forza Horizon 5	22	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +1340%	5−6 −1340%
Valorant	23	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +4400%	1−2 −4400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	0−1
World of Tanks	65−70 +6600%	1−2 −6600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	19	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	14−16	0−1
Metro Exodus	16−18	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Valorant	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	8 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	8 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	20 +33.3%	14−16 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	10−12	0−1
Fortnite	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	11	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	6−7	0−1
Valorant	9−10	0−1

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 4400% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the G 103M is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 25 tests (83%)
G 103M is ahead in 3 tests (10%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.25	0.16
Recency	15 August 2020	1 September 2009
Chip lithography	10 nm	65 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 5681.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 550% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G 103M in performance tests.

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