ATI Radeon X1600 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon X1600, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.93
+8308%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms ATI X1600 by a whopping 8308% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4251435
Place by popularity26not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.33
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeRV516
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)2007 (17 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 cores96no data
Core clock speedno data635 MHz
Number of transistorsno data105 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data27 Watt
Texture fill rateno data2.540
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data4

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR4DDR2
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MBps
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 data2x DVI, 1x S-Video

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.

DirectXDirectX 12_19.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 24−27 0−1
Battlefield 5 30−35 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27 0−1
Battlefield 5 30−35 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27 0−1
Battlefield 5 30−35 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11 0−1
Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50 0−1
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.93 0.13
Chip lithography 10 nm 90 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 8307.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Radeon X1600 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
ATI Radeon X1600
Radeon X1600

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 2541 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 59 votes

Rate Radeon X1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.