Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Radeon 840M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 840M and Iris Xe Graphics G7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms 840M by a minimal 2% 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 | 497 | 488 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3+ (2024) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 June 2024 (1 year 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 | 256 | 96 |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 10 nm |
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 |
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 | no data | DDR4 |
| Memory clock speed | 7500 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX 12_1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 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.
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.
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.
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 | 28
+3.7%
| 27−30
−3.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
−1.2%
|
85−90
+1.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
+4.6%
|
65−70
−4.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−1.8%
|
55−60
+1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−2.5%
|
40−45
+2.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−1.1%
|
90−95
+1.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−0.7%
|
140−150
+0.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−1.8%
|
55−60
+1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−2.5%
|
40−45
+2.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 32
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−1.1%
|
90−95
+1.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−2.5%
|
40−45
+2.5%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−3%
|
30−35
+3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−1.8%
|
55−60
+1.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−1.4%
|
70−75
+1.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−1%
|
100−110
+1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−4.5%
|
21−24
+4.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−2.1%
|
45−50
+2.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 840M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 840M is 4% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 9% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 performs better in 25 tests (60%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.14 | 9.30 |
| Recency | 2 June 2024 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 10 nm |
Radeon 840M has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has a 1.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon 840M and Iris Xe Graphics G7.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
