UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 560v
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 560v and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics G4 48EUs outperforms Mobility HD 560v by a whopping 426% 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 | 1193 | 713 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.13 | 11.64 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | M96 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 May 2010 (15 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (5 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 | 320 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 514 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.352 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | no data |
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 | 10.1 (10_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| 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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 3−4
−433%
| 16
+433%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−450%
|
11
+450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−20%
|
36
+20%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−13.6%
|
25
+13.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−100%
|
26
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
15
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−150%
|
15
+150%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−90%
|
55−60
+90%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24
+84.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−90%
|
55−60
+90%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−725%
|
30−35
+725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−267%
|
30−35
+267%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 560v and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 433% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 1500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs performs better in 37 tests (64%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (36%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.80 | 4.21 |
| Recency | 5 May 2010 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 28 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 560v has 86.7% lower power consumption.
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, on the other hand, has a 426.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 560v in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
