Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Radeon PRO W7600

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO W7600 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

PRO W7600
2023, $599
8 GB GDDR6, 130 Watt
38.95
+361%

PRO W7600 outperforms Graphics G7 96EUs by a whopping 361% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking123536
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation38.54no data
Power efficiency23.2123.38
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameNavi 33Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 August 2023 (2 years ago)15 August 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores204896
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed2440 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology6 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate312.3no data
ROPs64no data
TMUs128no 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 4.0 x8no data
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 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 typeGDDR6no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed18 GB/sno data
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort 2.1no data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12_1
Shader Model6.7no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.2no data
Vulkan1.3-

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 HD120−130
+344%
27
−344%
1440p65−70
+333%
15
−333%
4K55−60
+358%
12
−358%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.99no data
1440p9.22no data
4K10.89no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 124
+0%
124
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+0%
96
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 51
+0%
51
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 31
+0%
31
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 31
+0%
31
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 112
+0%
112
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 23
+0%
23
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
+0%
8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+0%
12
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how PRO W7600 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7600 is 344% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7600 is 333% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7600 is 358% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 38.95 8.45
Recency 3 August 2023 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 6 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 28 Watt

PRO W7600 has a 360.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has 364.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon PRO W7600
Radeon PRO W7600
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

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.


4.8 6 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1106 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO W7600 or Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.