Radeon R7 265 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Radeon R7 265, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
9.45

R7 265 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking461433
Place by popularity75not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.05
Power efficiency23.374.80
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XePitcairn
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)13 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

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 cores961024
Core clock speed400 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1350 MHz925 MHz
Number of transistorsno data2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rateno data59.20
Floating-point processing powerno data1.894 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data64

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 3.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data210 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1 x 6-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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1400 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data179.2 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 data2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_1DirectX® 12
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.45
R7 265 10.39
+9.9%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5143
R7 265 5220
+1.5%

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 HD26
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
1440p16
+0%
16−18
+0%
4K11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.52
1440pno data9.31
4Kno data12.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20
−5%
21−24
+5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
−9.1%
24−27
+9.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21
+0%
21−24
+0%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−3.4%
30−33
+3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 36
+2.9%
35−40
−2.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−9.1%
24−27
+9.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−3.2%
65−70
+3.2%
Hitman 3 24
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 124
−4.8%
130−140
+4.8%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90
−5.6%
95−100
+5.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+0%
18−20
+0%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−3.4%
30−33
+3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−9.1%
24−27
+9.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−3.2%
65−70
+3.2%
Hitman 3 23
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 112
−7.1%
120−130
+7.1%
Metro Exodus 28
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 84
−7.1%
90−95
+7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 23
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−9.1%
24−27
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−3.2%
65−70
+3.2%
Hitman 3 20
−5%
21−24
+5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 23
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14−16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−6.6%
65−70
+6.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−9.8%
45−50
+9.8%
Hitman 3 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−8.3%
65−70
+8.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
−2.6%
40−45
+2.6%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and R7 265 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 4% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • R7 265 is 9% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.45 10.39
Recency 15 August 2020 13 February 2014
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 150 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 435.7% lower power consumption.

R7 265, on the other hand, has a 9.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and Radeon R7 265.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Radeon R7 265 is a desktop one.


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

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 R7 265
Radeon R7 265

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 954 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.