GeForce GTX 260M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GeForce GTX 260M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GTX 260M by a whopping 862% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 436 | 1073 |
| Place by popularity | 80 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | N10E-GT |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (3 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 112 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 31 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 308 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 462 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GeForce GTX 260M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | no data | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 950 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 61 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 outperforms GeForce GTX 260M by 862% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GeForce GTX 260M by 418% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 26
+4%
| 25
−4%
|
| 1440p | 16
+1500%
| 1−2
−1500%
|
| 4K | 12
+1100%
| 1−2
−1100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 200−210
+852%
|
21
−852%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 270−280
+831%
|
27−30
−831%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 300−310
+757%
|
35
−757%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 170−180
+844%
|
18
−844%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 270−280
+831%
|
27−30
−831%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 260−270
+829%
|
28
−829%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 130−140
+829%
|
14−16
−829%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+823%
|
12−14
−823%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 180−190
+847%
|
19
−847%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+844%
|
9−10
−844%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+817%
|
12
−817%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+817%
|
12−14
−817%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GTX 260M compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 4% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1500% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.43 | 0.98 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 75 Watt |
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
