Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon PRO WX 2100, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms PRO WX 2100 by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 481 | 647 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.80 |
| Power efficiency | 22.74 | 9.46 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Lexa |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1219 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 39.01 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.248 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 3.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 48 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 27
+92.9%
| 14−16
−92.9%
|
| 1440p | 16
+100%
| 8−9
−100%
|
| 4K | 11
+120%
| 5−6
−120%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.64 |
| 1440p | no data | 18.63 |
| 4K | no data | 29.80 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+164%
|
10−12
−164%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Valorant | 26
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+92.9%
|
27−30
−92.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+72.7%
|
10−12
−72.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+75.6%
|
40−45
−75.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| World of Tanks | 96
+21.5%
|
75−80
−21.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+75.6%
|
40−45
−75.6%
|
| Valorant | 23
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 7
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+38.7%
|
30−35
−38.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+94.1%
|
30−35
−94.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and PRO WX 2100 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 93% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 100% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 120% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 467% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 113% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 53 tests (85%)
- PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.13 | 4.75 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 4 June 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 35 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 92.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
