Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Radeon 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 630 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms Radeon 630 by a whopping 241% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 702 | 387 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.50 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Gen. 12 Xe (2020) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | iDG1LPDEV |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 August 2019 (4 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (3 years ago) |
| Current price | $65 | no data |
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 | 512 | 96 |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.98 | 79.20 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon 630 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | LPDDR4x |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 4266 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 68.26 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
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 MAX Graphics outperforms Radeon 630 by 241% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms Radeon 630 by 52% in Passmark.
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 | 7−8
−271%
| 26
+271%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−300%
| 20
+300%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−325%
| 17
+325%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−229%
|
21−24
+229%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1800%
|
19
+1800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−243%
|
24
+243%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−140%
|
48
+140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2750%
|
57
+2750%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−313%
|
33
+313%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−200%
|
39
+200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−229%
|
21−24
+229%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−500%
|
6
+500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12
+71.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−135%
|
45−50
+135%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1550%
|
33
+1550%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−275%
|
30
+275%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−154%
|
33
+154%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−325%
|
34
+325%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
−229%
|
21−24
+229%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
−30%
|
26
+30%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−123%
|
29
+123%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−125%
|
18
+125%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−213%
|
25
+213%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−400%
|
20−22
+400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 6−7 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
This is how Radeon 630 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 271% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 300% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 325% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 2750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Iris Xe MAX Graphics surpassed Radeon 630 in all 65 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.35 | 11.43 |
| Recency | 12 August 2019 | 31 October 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 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.
