Radeon R5 230 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon R5 230, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
8.51
+1506%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 1506% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5181259
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency23.122.12
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeCaicos
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)3 April 2014 (11 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 cores96160
Core clock speed400 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data370 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt19 Watt
Texture fill rateno data5.000
Floating-point processing powerno data0.2 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 1.0 x4
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataN/A

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 dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory bandwidthno data10.67 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+
​PowerPlayno data+
DDMA audiono data-
Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_1DirectX® 11
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2

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
+2600%
1−2
−2600%
1440p150−1
4K120−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Sons of the Forest 10 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 41
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Cyberpunk 2077 16 0−1
Far Cry 5 26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Fortnite 30
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Forza Horizon 5 35
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Sons of the Forest 8 0−1
Valorant 124
+1671%
7−8
−1671%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+1820%
5−6
−1820%
Cyberpunk 2077 13 0−1
Dota 2 51
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Far Cry 5 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Fortnite 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Forza Horizon 5 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Metro Exodus 15 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Sons of the Forest 8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Valorant 112
+1767%
6−7
−1767%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Dota 2 47
+2250%
2−3
−2250%
Far Cry 5 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Sons of the Forest 8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 0−1
Valorant 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
Grand Theft Auto V 7 0−1
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Valorant 95−100
+1517%
6−7
−1517%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 7 0−1
Far Cry 5 16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Sons of the Forest 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 8 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12 0−1
Valorant 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1
Sons of the Forest 5−6 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9 0−1

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and R5 230 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 2600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.51 0.53
Recency 15 August 2020 3 April 2014
Chip lithography 10 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 19 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 1505.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

R5 230, on the other hand, has 47.4% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R5 230 is a desktop 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 R5 230
Radeon R5 230

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.


3.5 1068 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 256 votes

Rate Radeon R5 230 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 R5 230, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.