ATI Radeon HD 4200 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon HD 4200, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
8.84
+3057%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms ATI HD 4200 by a whopping 3057% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4841346
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency22.62no data
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeRS880
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)1 August 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 cores9640
Core clock speed400 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data181 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data2.000
Floating-point processing powerno data0.04 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data4

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 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_110.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.0
Vulkan-N/A

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 8.84
+3057%
ATI HD 4200 0.28

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
+10908%
ATI HD 4200 236

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 HD270−1
1440p15-0−1
4K11-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 15
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+567%
3−4
−567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 13
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+367%
3−4
−367%
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
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+267%
3−4
−267%
Dota 2 28 0−1
Far Cry 5 31
+343%
7−8
−343%
Fortnite 50−55
+5300%
1−2
−5300%
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
+1100%
6−7
−1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%
Valorant 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
World of Tanks 96
+700%
12−14
−700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Dota 2 47
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Far Cry 5 34
+386%
7−8
−386%
Forza Horizon 4 24
+380%
5−6
−380%
Forza Horizon 5 22 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+1100%
6−7
−1100%
Valorant 23 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1
World of Tanks 65−70
+3200%
2−3
−3200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
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 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 8
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
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 2−3 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 9−10 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 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 2600% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4200 is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 26 tests (87%)
  • ATI HD 4200 is ahead in 3 tests (10%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.84 0.28
Recency 15 August 2020 1 August 2009
Chip lithography 10 nm 55 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 3057.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4200 is a desktop one.


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
ATI Radeon HD 4200
Radeon HD 4200

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.


3.6 1001 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 275 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4200 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.