Radeon R7 M260 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 and Radeon R7 M260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 737% 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 | 997 |
| Place by popularity | 16 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Opal Pro / Mars |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (3 years ago) | 7 January 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $799 |
| Current price | no data | $430 (0.5x MSRP) |
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 | 384 |
| Compute units | no data | 6 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 715 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 23.52 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 721.9 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Iris Xe Graphics G7 and Radeon R7 M260 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| DualGraphics | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Mantle | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon R7 M260 by 737% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon R7 M260 by 254% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon R7 M260 by 352% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Radeon R7 M260 by 579% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 | 100−110
+669%
| 13
−669%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 280−290
+724%
|
30−35
−724%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 280−290
+724%
|
30−35
−724%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 280−290
+724%
|
30−35
−724%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 280−290
+724%
|
30−35
−724%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 250−260
+733%
|
30−33
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 100−105
+669%
|
12−14
−669%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 180−190
+718%
|
21−24
−718%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+713%
|
16−18
−713%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+733%
|
18−20
−733%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 120−130
+700%
|
14−16
−700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+710%
|
21−24
−710%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 150−160
+733%
|
18−20
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 90−95
+718%
|
10−12
−718%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 80−85
+700%
|
10−11
−700%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+700%
|
10−11
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+686%
|
14−16
−686%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and R7 M260 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 669% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.71 | 1.28 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 7 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 28 nm |
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.
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.
