Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Radeon Pro 5300M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 5300M with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.

Pro 5300M
2019
4 GB GDDR6, 85 Watt
14.34
+50.6%

Pro 5300M outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking362456
Place by popularitynot in top-10021
Power efficiency12.34no data
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameNavi 14Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2019 (5 years ago)15 August 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 cores128096
Core clock speed1000 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1250 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology7 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Wattno data
Texture fill rate100.0no data
Floating-point processing power3.2 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs80no 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR6DDR4
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1500 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR+-

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)DirectX 12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+54.8%
30−35
−54.8%
Fortnite 80−85
+41.4%
55−60
−41.4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+45.2%
40−45
−45.2%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+55.9%
30−35
−55.9%
Valorant 120−130
+30.4%
90−95
−30.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+64%
50−55
−64%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+34.5%
140−150
−34.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Dota 2 90−95
+33.3%
65−70
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+54.8%
30−35
−54.8%
Fortnite 80−85
+41.4%
55−60
−41.4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+45.2%
40−45
−45.2%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+52.8%
35−40
−52.8%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+57.9%
18−20
−57.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+55.9%
30−35
−55.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+52%
24−27
−52%
Valorant 120−130
+30.4%
90−95
−30.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+66.7%
18−20
−66.7%
Dota 2 90−95
+33.3%
65−70
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+54.8%
30−35
−54.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+45.2%
40−45
−45.2%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+55.9%
30−35
−55.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+52%
24−27
−52%
Valorant 120−130
+60%
75−80
−60%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
+41.4%
55−60
−41.4%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+46.6%
70−75
−46.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+54.4%
90−95
−54.4%
Valorant 140−150
+39.3%
100−110
−39.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+66.7%
24−27
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+55%
20−22
−55%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+56.5%
21−24
−56.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+60%
20−22
−60%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+35%
20−22
−35%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+81.8%
10−12
−81.8%
Valorant 75−80
+58%
50−55
−58%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+75%
12−14
−75%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 50−55
+48.6%
35−40
−48.6%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 120% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro 5300M surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 in all 42 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.34 9.52
Recency 13 November 2019 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 7 nm 10 nm

Pro 5300M has a 50.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months.

The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a mobile workstation 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 5300M
Radeon Pro 5300M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7
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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 173 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 2777 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 5300M or Iris Xe Graphics G7, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.