GeForce GT 820M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GeForce GT 820M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
9.47
+553%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GT 820M by a whopping 553% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking468993
Place by popularity88not in top-100
Power efficiency23.186.62
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeGF117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)27 November 2013 (11 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 cores9696
Core clock speed400 MHz775 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data585 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rateno data12.40
Floating-point processing powerno data0.2976 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data14.4 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 Connectorsno dataNo 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.

DirectX12_112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
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 HD26
+767%
3−4
−767%
1440p15
+650%
2−3
−650%
4K10
+900%
1−2
−900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20
+567%
3−4
−567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+633%
3−4
−633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21
+600%
3−4
−600%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 36
+620%
5−6
−620%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+600%
9−10
−600%
Hitman 3 24
+700%
3−4
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 124
+589%
18−20
−589%
Metro Exodus 35
+600%
5−6
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90
+650%
12−14
−650%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+800%
2−3
−800%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32
+700%
4−5
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+600%
9−10
−600%
Hitman 3 23
+667%
3−4
−667%
Horizon Zero Dawn 112
+600%
16−18
−600%
Metro Exodus 28
+600%
4−5
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+767%
3−4
−767%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
+650%
4−5
−650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Watch Dogs: Legion 84
+600%
12−14
−600%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+600%
2−3
−600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 23
+667%
3−4
−667%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+600%
9−10
−600%
Hitman 3 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 23
+667%
3−4
−667%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+700%
3−4
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+578%
9−10
−578%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+600%
2−3
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+583%
6−7
−583%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+567%
9−10
−567%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GT 820M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 767% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 650% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.47 1.45
Recency 15 August 2020 27 November 2013
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 15 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 553.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

GT 820M, on the other hand, has 86.7% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 820M in performance tests.


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

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 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M
GeForce GT 820M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 982 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 121 vote

Rate GeForce GT 820M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.