Radeon PRO W7800 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	461	14
Place by popularity	76	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	29.53
Power efficiency	23.37	19.74
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	Navi 31
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	4480
Core clock speed	400 MHz	1855 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	2499 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	699.7
Floating-point processing power	no data	44.78 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	128
TMUs	no data	280
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	70

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 4.0 x16
Length	no data	280 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 8-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	no data	32 GB
Memory bus width	no data	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	576.0 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

3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.7
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.2
Vulkan	-	1.3

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 −669%	200−210 +669%
1440p	16 −650%	120−130 +650%
4K	11 −673%	85−90 +673%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	12.50
1440p	no data	20.83
4K	no data	29.40

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

20
−650%

150−160

+650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 −673%	170−180 +673%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21 −662%	160−170 +662%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −659%	220−230 +659%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	36 −678%	280−290 +678%
Cyberpunk 2077	16 −650%	120−130 +650%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −673%	170−180 +673%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −669%	200−210 +669%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −614%	450−500 +614%
Hitman 3	24 −650%	180−190 +650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	124 −666%	950−1000 +666%
Metro Exodus	35 −671%	270−280 +671%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 −665%	130−140 +665%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −674%	240−250 +674%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90 −678%	700−750 +678%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −683%	180−190 +683%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18 −678%	140−150 +678%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −659%	220−230 +659%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 −681%	250−260 +681%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 −669%	100−105 +669%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −673%	170−180 +673%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −669%	200−210 +669%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −614%	450−500 +614%
Hitman 3	23 −683%	180−190 +683%
Horizon Zero Dawn	112 −659%	850−900 +659%
Metro Exodus	28 −650%	210−220 +650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26 −669%	200−210 +669%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30 −667%	230−240 +667%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −669%	200−210 +669%
Watch Dogs: Legion	84 −674%	650−700 +674%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 −614%	100−105 +614%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −614%	100−105 +614%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	23 −683%	180−190 +683%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 −673%	85−90 +673%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −673%	170−180 +673%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −614%	450−500 +614%
Hitman 3	20 −650%	150−160 +650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	23 −683%	180−190 +683%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24 −650%	180−190 +650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 −614%	100−105 +614%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −638%	450−500 +638%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14
−614%

100−105

+614%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −678%	140−150 +678%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −614%	100−105 +614%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −678%	70−75 +678%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −678%	70−75 +678%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 −614%	50−55 +614%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −673%	85−90 +673%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −632%	300−310 +632%
Hitman 3	12−14 −669%	100−105 +669%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −650%	150−160 +650%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −669%	100−105 +669%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 −637%	140−150 +637%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −678%	70−75 +678%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −650%	450−500 +650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
−650%

120−130

+650%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −678%	70−75 +678%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Hitman 3	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −669%	300−310 +669%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 −650%	90−95 +650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −650%	90−95 +650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 −673%	85−90 +673%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
−678%

70−75

+678%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:

PRO W7800 is 669% faster in 1080p
PRO W7800 is 650% faster in 1440p
PRO W7800 is 673% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.45	74.12
Recency	15 August 2020	13 April 2023
Chip lithography	10 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	260 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has 828.6% lower power consumption.

PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 684.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.

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