Radeon R7 265 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
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
8.58

R7 265 outperforms Graphics G7 96EUs by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking535490
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data4.70
Power efficiency23.554.95
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XePitcairn
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date15 August 2020 (5 years ago)13 February 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 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
L1 Cacheno data256 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 KB

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

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 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 and SDK support

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 benchmarks

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 8.58
R7 265 9.67
+12.7%

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 5160
R7 265 5220
+1.2%

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
−11.1%
30−35
+11.1%
1440p15
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
4K12
+0%
12−14
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.97
1440pno data9.31
4Kno data12.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−8.7%
50−55
+8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 28
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 41
−9.8%
45−50
+9.8%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−8.7%
50−55
+8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Far Cry 5 26
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Fortnite 30
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%
Forza Horizon 5 35
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Valorant 124
−4.8%
130−140
+4.8%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
−8.7%
50−55
+8.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
−4.2%
100−105
+4.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Dota 2 51
−7.8%
55−60
+7.8%
Far Cry 5 25
−8%
27−30
+8%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%
Forza Horizon 5 31
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Hogwarts Legacy 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Metro Exodus 15
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 112
−7.1%
120−130
+7.1%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Dota 2 47
−6.4%
50−55
+6.4%
Far Cry 5 23
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−5.3%
40−45
+5.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 23
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 15
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
−6.1%
70−75
+6.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−8.7%
50−55
+8.7%
Valorant 95−100
−3.1%
100−105
+3.1%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22
−5%
21−24
+5%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 45−50
−11.1%
50−55
+11.1%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20
−5%
21−24
+5%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

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

  • R7 265 is 11% faster in 1080p
  • R7 265 is 7% faster in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.58 9.67
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 12.7% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R7 265 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 R7 265 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 R7 265
Radeon R7 265

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 1108 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 384 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 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 R7 265, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.