Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) vs Radeon HD 6380G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6380G and Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) outperforms HD 6380G by a whopping 685% 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 | 1296 | 760 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 11.44 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | SuperSumo | Ice Lake G4 Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 28 May 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 160 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 12-25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.128 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Interface | IGP | 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 | System Shared | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| 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.
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 | 2−3
−750%
| 17
+750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 200.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−92.6%
|
50−55
+92.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−131%
|
37
+131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18
+63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−160%
|
13
+160%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−92.6%
|
50−55
+92.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−81.8%
|
20
+81.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7
+40%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−92.6%
|
50−55
+92.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−520%
|
30−35
+520%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 7−8 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how HD 6380G and Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) is 750% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) is 1350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) performs better in 28 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.47 | 3.69 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 28 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 12 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) has a 685.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.
The Iris Plus Graphics G4 (Ice Lake 48 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6380G 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.
