Qualcomm Adreno 690 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and Qualcomm Adreno 690, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 690 by a whopping 289% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 436 | 806 |
| Place by popularity | 18 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 26.90 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (6 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 | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 7 Watt |
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 | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 85−90
+270%
| 23
−270%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+350%
|
18−20
−350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+171%
|
14
−171%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+169%
|
16
−169%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+313%
|
14−16
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+224%
|
24−27
−224%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| World of Tanks | 150−160
+208%
|
45−50
−208%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35
−8.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+224%
|
24−27
−224%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60−65
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and Qualcomm Adreno 690 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 270% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 2300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 32 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.62 | 2.73 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 5 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 289% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Qualcomm Adreno 690, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 690 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
