Radeon PRO WX 2100 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe G1 UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
VS
Radeon PRO WX 2100 Radeon PRO WX 3100 Radeon PRO WX 9100

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
2020
28 Watt
8.89
+90.4%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms PRO WX 2100 by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
PRO WX 2100 PRO WX 2100

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking492658
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data3.36
Power efficiency22.459.44
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeLexa
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)4 June 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores96512
Core clock speed400 MHz925 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1219 MHz
Number of transistorsno data2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data39.01
Floating-point processing powerno data1.248 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32

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 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48 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 Connectorsno data1x 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_112 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
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 HD27
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
1440p15
+114%
7−8
−114%
4K12
+100%
6−7
−100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data10.64
1440pno data21.29
4Kno data24.83

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+137%
18−20
−137%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+111%
9−10
−111%
Hogwarts Legacy 28
+211%
9−10
−211%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 41
+128%
18−20
−128%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+137%
18−20
−137%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Far Cry 5 26
+100%
12−14
−100%
Fortnite 30
+15.4%
24−27
−15.4%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+81%
21−24
−81%
Forza Horizon 5 35
+218%
10−12
−218%
Hogwarts Legacy 16
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+72.2%
18−20
−72.2%
Valorant 124
+114%
55−60
−114%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+137%
18−20
−137%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+21.5%
75−80
−21.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Dota 2 51
+30.8%
35−40
−30.8%
Far Cry 5 25
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
Fortnite 21
−23.8%
24−27
+23.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+81%
21−24
−81%
Forza Horizon 5 31
+182%
10−12
−182%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 11
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Metro Exodus 15
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+72.2%
18−20
−72.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+131%
12−14
−131%
Valorant 112
+93.1%
55−60
−93.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Dota 2 47
+20.5%
35−40
−20.5%
Far Cry 5 23
+76.9%
12−14
−76.9%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+81%
21−24
−81%
Hogwarts Legacy 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+72.2%
18−20
−72.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Valorant 23
−152%
55−60
+152%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15
−73.3%
24−27
+73.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+94.1%
30−35
−94.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+30.3%
30−35
−30.3%
Valorant 95−100
+98%
45−50
−98%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 16
+60%
10−11
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−100%
16−18
+100%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Valorant 45−50
+95.7%
21−24
−95.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 20
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

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 114% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 100% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1100% faster.
  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 152% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 56 tests (92%)
  • PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 5 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.89 4.67
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 90.4% 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.

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
AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
vs
HD 7970M Radeon HD 7970M
PRO WX 2100 Radeon PRO WX 2100
vs
Tesla M2070 Tesla M2070
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
vs
GTX 870M GeForce GTX 870M
GT 745M NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M
vs
HD Graphics 4000 HD Graphics 4000
RX 6800 XT Radeon RX 6800 XT
vs
RTX 3060 GDDR6X 3060 GDDR6X
Xbox One GPU AMD Xbox One GPU
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
RTX 3060 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060
vs
UHD Graphics 64EU UHD Graphics 64EU
RTX 3060 Mobile NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile
vs
Iris Xe Graphics 80EU Xe Graphics 80EU
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
vs
Plex 7000 Plex 7000
RTX 3070 NVIDIA RTX 3070
vs
RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 6 GB 3050 Max-Q Refresh 6 GB
RTX 3090 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090
vs
A100X A100X
RX 6900 XT AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT
vs
Apple M1 Max 24-Core GPU Max 24-Core GPU
540 Mobile AMD Radeon 540 Mobile
vs
RTX 4060 Mobile RTX 4060 Mobile

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 1013 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs or Radeon PRO WX 2100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.