GeForce 310M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms 310M by a whopping 3429% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 425 | 1325 |
| Place by popularity | 26 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.52 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (14 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 cores | 96 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 606 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04896 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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 support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 10.67 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 | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+625%
|
8−9
−625%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+625%
|
8−9
−625%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 12 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (59%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.94 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 40 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 3429% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
