HD Graphics P630 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms HD Graphics P630 by a whopping 245% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 397 | 721 |
| Place by popularity | 16 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Gen. 9.5 Kaby Lake (2015−2017) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Kaby-Lake-H-GT2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (3 years ago) | 5 August 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $1449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 24 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 26.40 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Xe Graphics G7 and HD Graphics P630 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1740 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.1.103 |
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 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+182%
|
10−12
−182%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
+131%
|
12−14
−131%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+182%
|
10−12
−182%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
+131%
|
12−14
−131%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+182%
|
10−12
−182%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 1300% faster than the HD Graphics P630.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Xe Graphics G7 surpassed HD Graphics P630 in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.69 | 3.10 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 5 August 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics P630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while HD Graphics P630 is a desktop one.
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.
