GeForce G102M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce G102M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Xe Graphics G7
2020
9.60
+2300%

Graphics G7 outperforms G102M by a whopping 2300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4981332
Place by popularity24not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data2.20
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeC79
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (5 years ago)8 January 2009 (17 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 cores9616
Core clock speedno data450 MHz
Number of transistorsno data314 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data14 Watt
Texture fill rateno data3.600
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0352 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data48
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 dataPCI-E 1.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16

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 typeDDR4GDDR2
Maximum RAM amountno dataUp to 512 MB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data400 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data6.4 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 dataVGAHDMIDisplayPortSingle Link DVILVDS
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0
Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX 12_111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno dataN/A
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

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Fortnite 55−60
+2800%
2−3
−2800%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Valorant 90−95
+3000%
3−4
−3000%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+2350%
6−7
−2350%
Dota 2 70−75
+3400%
2−3
−3400%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Fortnite 55−60
+2800%
2−3
−2800%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Valorant 90−95
+3000%
3−4
−3000%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Dota 2 70−75
+3400%
2−3
−3400%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+2800%
2−3
−2800%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+2367%
3−4
−2367%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−12 0−1
Valorant 100−110
+2575%
4−5
−2575%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Far Cry 5 20−22 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 21−24 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 0−1
Valorant 50−55
+2450%
2−3
−2450%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Dota 2 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.60 0.40
Recency 15 August 2020 8 January 2009
Chip lithography 10 nm 65 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 2300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 550% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G102M in performance tests.

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.


3.4 3221 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 50 votes

Rate GeForce G102M 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 or GeForce G102M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.