Radeon HD 6290 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon HD 6290, including specs and performance data.
Graphics G7 outperforms HD 6290 by a whopping 3740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 498 | 1430 |
| Place by popularity | 24 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.01 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Cedar |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 4 December 2011 (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 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 5.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 230−240
+3733%
| 6
−3733%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+272%
|
24−27
−272%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+1031%
|
12−14
−1031%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+678%
|
9−10
−678%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+272%
|
24−27
−272%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+678%
|
9−10
−678%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and HD 6290 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 3733% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 5000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 performs better in 18 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.60 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 4 December 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 40 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 3740% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6290 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6290 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
