Radeon Pro WX 4150 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon Pro WX 4150, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.27
+46.9%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Pro WX 4150 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking449567
Place by popularity17not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data9.58
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeBaffin
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)1 March 2017 (7 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 cores96896
Core clock speedno data1002 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1053 MHz
Number of transistorsno data3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data58.97
Floating-point processing powerno data1.887 TFLOPS
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 datamedium sized
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data96 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 dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+
Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX 12_112 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

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

Battlefield 5 40−45
+50%
27−30
−50%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%
Fortnite 55−60
+45%
40−45
−45%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+44.8%
27−30
−44.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Valorant 90−95
+27.8%
70−75
−27.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+50%
27−30
−50%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+35.5%
100−110
−35.5%
Dota 2 65−70
+32.7%
50−55
−32.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%
Fortnite 55−60
+45%
40−45
−45%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+44.8%
27−30
−44.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+50%
24−27
−50%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+47.1%
16−18
−47.1%
Valorant 90−95
+27.8%
70−75
−27.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+50%
27−30
−50%
Dota 2 65−70
+32.7%
50−55
−32.7%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+44.8%
27−30
−44.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+47.1%
16−18
−47.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+45%
40−45
−45%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+46%
50−55
−46%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Valorant 100−110
+44.6%
70−75
−44.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Valorant 50−55
+51.5%
30−35
−51.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Dota 2 35−40
+52.2%
21−24
−52.2%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 42 tests (63%)
  • there's a draw in 25 tests (37%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.27 6.99
Recency 15 August 2020 1 March 2017
Chip lithography 10 nm 14 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 46.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4150 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 4150 is a mobile workstation one.

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
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4150
Radeon Pro WX 4150

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 2683 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 21 vote

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4150 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 Radeon Pro WX 4150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.