Radeon PRO W7800 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7800 outperforms Graphics G7 96EUs by a whopping 665% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 540 | 28 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.34 |
| Power efficiency | 23.65 | 19.48 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2525 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 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 45.25 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 128 |
| TMUs | no data | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
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 | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| 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
−631%
| 190−200
+631%
|
| 1440p | 15
−633%
| 110−120
+633%
|
| 4K | 12
−650%
| 90−95
+650%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 13.15 |
| 1440p | no data | 22.72 |
| 4K | no data | 27.77 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−661%
|
350−400
+661%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
−637%
|
140−150
+637%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 20
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 41
−632%
|
300−310
+632%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−661%
|
350−400
+661%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−631%
|
190−200
+631%
|
| Fortnite | 30
−633%
|
220−230
+633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−663%
|
290−300
+663%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
−665%
|
260−270
+665%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−642%
|
230−240
+642%
|
| Valorant | 124
−626%
|
900−950
+626%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35
−643%
|
260−270
+643%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−661%
|
350−400
+661%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 96
−629%
|
700−750
+629%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−631%
|
95−100
+631%
|
| Dota 2 | 51
−586%
|
350−400
+586%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
−660%
|
190−200
+660%
|
| Fortnite | 21
−662%
|
160−170
+662%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−663%
|
290−300
+663%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 31
−642%
|
230−240
+642%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
−665%
|
130−140
+665%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
−633%
|
110−120
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−642%
|
230−240
+642%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
−633%
|
220−230
+633%
|
| Valorant | 112
−659%
|
850−900
+659%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
−633%
|
220−230
+633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−627%
|
80−85
+627%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
−645%
|
350−400
+645%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
−639%
|
170−180
+639%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−663%
|
290−300
+663%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−642%
|
230−240
+642%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Valorant | 23
−639%
|
170−180
+639%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 15
−633%
|
110−120
+633%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−658%
|
500−550
+658%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
−661%
|
350−400
+661%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−622%
|
700−750
+622%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−662%
|
160−170
+662%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−622%
|
130−140
+622%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−567%
|
300−310
+567%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7800 is 631% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7800 is 633% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7800 is 650% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.60 | 65.77 |
| 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 829% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 665% 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 graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
