GeForce GTX 260M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GTX 260M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.05
+947%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GTX 260M by a whopping 947% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4471120
Place by popularity17not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.04
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeG92
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)3 March 2009 (15 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 cores96112
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Number of transistorsno data754 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data65 Watt
Texture fill rateno data30.80
Floating-point processing powerno data0.308 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data462
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data56

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options-2-way
MXM Typeno dataMXM 3.0 Type-B

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 typeDDR4GDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno dataUp to 950 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data61 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 dataDisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

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 compatibility

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 data1.1
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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD300−350
+934%
29
−934%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Fortnite 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%
Valorant 90−95
+197%
30−35
−197%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+535%
21−24
−535%
Dota 2 65−70
+393%
14−16
−393%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Fortnite 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Valorant 90−95
+197%
30−35
−197%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+950%
4−5
−950%
Dota 2 65−70
+393%
14−16
−393%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Valorant 100−110 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Far Cry 5 20−22 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Valorant 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Dota 2 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and GTX 260M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 934% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 5700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 25 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.05 0.96
Recency 15 August 2020 3 March 2009
Chip lithography 10 nm 65 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 946.9% 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 GTX 260M in performance tests.

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
Iris Xe Graphics G7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
GeForce GTX 260M

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 2674 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 16 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Xe Graphics G7 or GeForce GTX 260M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.