Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs Radeon HD 6950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6950M with Iris Xe Graphics MAX, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics MAX outperforms HD 6950M by a considerable 43% 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 | 766 | 669 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.02 | 14.33 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | DG1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (4 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 | 960 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.84 | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.114 TFLOPS | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 48 | 48 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 4.3 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 68.26 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−42.9%
|
70−75
+42.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85−90
+39.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−42.9%
|
70−75
+42.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−42.9%
|
70−75
+42.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.29 | 4.70 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 31 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics MAX has a 42.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook graphics card while Iris Xe Graphics MAX is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
