Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) vs ATI Radeon HD 5830

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 5830 with Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), including specs and performance data.

ATI HD 5830
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 175 Watt
4.51

Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) outperforms ATI HD 5830 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking664616
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.7815.01
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameCypressIce Lake G7 Gen. 11
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date25 February 2010 (14 years ago)28 May 2019 (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 cores112064
Core clock speed800 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1100 MHz
Number of transistors2,154 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt12-25 Watt
Texture fill rate44.80no data
Floating-point processing power1.792 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs56no 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length282 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR4
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth128.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12_1
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCL1.2no data
VulkanN/A-

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. 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.

ATI HD 5830 4.51
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) 5.44
+20.6%

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.

ATI HD 5830 1930
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) 2743
+42.1%

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 HD14−16
−28.6%
18
+28.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 17
+0%
17
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 12
+0%
12
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 48
+0%
48
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 10
+0%
10
+0%
World of Tanks 39
+0%
39
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 15
+0%
15
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
World of Tanks 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how ATI HD 5830 and Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is 29% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.51 5.44
Recency 25 February 2010 28 May 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 12 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) has a 20.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 1358.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5830 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 5830 is a desktop card while Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is a notebook 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.


ATI Radeon HD 5830
Radeon HD 5830
Intel Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 76 votes

Rate Radeon HD 5830 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 238 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) 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.