Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Radeon Pro 560

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 560 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

Pro 560
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.01

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms Pro 560 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking481466
Place by popularitynot in top-10075
Power efficiency8.3723.55
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 21Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 April 2017 (7 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 cores102496
Core clock speed907 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate58.05no data
Floating-point processing power1.858 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs64no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1270 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth81.28 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro 560 9.01
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.46
+5%

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.

Pro 560 5305
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6518
+22.9%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Pro 560 18982
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 25978
+36.9%

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.

Pro 560 3892
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5143
+32.1%

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.

Pro 560 23105
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 26949
+16.6%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 560 198867
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 208639
+4.9%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Pro 560 1376
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 1560
+13.4%

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 HD24−27
−8.3%
26
+8.3%
1440p14−16
−7.1%
15
+7.1%
4K10−12
−10%
11
+10%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−42.9%
20
+42.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
22
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−61.5%
21
+61.5%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−100%
36
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−4%
24−27
+4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−5%
60−65
+5%
Hitman 3 16−18
−41.2%
24
+41.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−148%
124
+148%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−25%
35
+25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+47.1%
17
−47.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−50%
90
+50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−38.5%
18
+38.5%
Battlefield 5 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−77.8%
32
+77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.7%
13
−7.7%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−4%
24−27
+4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−5%
60−65
+5%
Hitman 3 16−18
−35.3%
23
+35.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−124%
112
+124%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
28
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−4%
26
+4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−4%
24−27
+4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−40%
84
+40%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+57.1%
14
−57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−27.8%
23
+27.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
11
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−5%
60−65
+5%
Hitman 3 16−18
−17.6%
20
+17.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+117%
23
−117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+25%
24
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+78.6%
14
−78.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
−1.7%
60−65
+1.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+78.6%
14
−78.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−75%
7
+75%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−7.9%
40−45
+7.9%
Hitman 3 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−90%
19
+90%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−5.3%
60−65
+5.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
−8.3%
35−40
+8.3%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−100%
12
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
−120%
11
+120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Pro 560 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 8% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 7% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 10% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 560 is 117% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 148% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 560 is ahead in 8 tests (11%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 48 tests (67%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (22%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.01 9.46
Recency 18 April 2017 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 28 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 167.9% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 560 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 560
Radeon Pro 560
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4 110 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 963 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.