Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Radeon Pro 5500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 5500M with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by an impressive 72% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 319 | 447 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 17 |
| Power efficiency | 14.23 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 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 cores | 1536 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1450 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 139.2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.454 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 96 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR6 | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | no 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 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 59
+96.7%
| 30−35
−96.7%
|
| 1440p | 60
+100%
| 30−35
−100%
|
| 4K | 34
+88.9%
| 18−20
−88.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+81%
|
40−45
−81%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+75%
|
30−35
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+56.9%
|
55−60
−56.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+61.9%
|
40−45
−61.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+79.4%
|
30−35
−79.4%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+41.3%
|
90−95
−41.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+47.6%
|
40−45
−47.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 208
+42.5%
|
140−150
−42.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 111
+60.9%
|
65−70
−60.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+75%
|
30−35
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+56.9%
|
55−60
−56.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+61.9%
|
40−45
−61.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+86.5%
|
35−40
−86.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+94.7%
|
18−20
−94.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+79.4%
|
30−35
−79.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+172%
|
24−27
−172%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+41.3%
|
90−95
−41.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+40.5%
|
40−45
−40.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+55.1%
|
65−70
−55.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+71.9%
|
30−35
−71.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+61.9%
|
40−45
−61.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+91.7%
|
24−27
−91.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+79.4%
|
30−35
−79.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
| Valorant | 28
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+56.9%
|
55−60
−56.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 118
+59.5%
|
70−75
−59.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 107
+78.3%
|
60−65
−78.3%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+53.3%
|
100−110
−53.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+78.3%
|
21−24
−78.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+85%
|
20−22
−85%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55
−84%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
This is how Pro 5500M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 97% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 100% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 89% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 172% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro 5500M surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 in all 42 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.61 | 10.25 |
| Recency | 13 November 2019 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 10 nm |
Pro 5500M has a 71.8% 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 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
