Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Radeon Pro Vega II
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega II outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a whopping 341% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 106 | 487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.53 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.85 | 22.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 4096 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1574 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 440.3 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.09 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 256 | 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).
| Interface | Apple MPX | no data |
| Width | Quad-slot | 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 | HBM2 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 806 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 825.3 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
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) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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 HD | 110−120
+307%
| 27
−307%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+333%
| 15
−333%
|
| 4K | 50−55
+317%
| 12
−317%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 19.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 33.83 | no data |
| 4K | 43.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+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 Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| 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%
|
| 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 Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+0%
|
47
+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 Preset
| Fortnite | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+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 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+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 Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+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 Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how Pro Vega II and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega II is 307% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega II is 333% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega II is 317% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.88 | 7.91 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 28 Watt |
Pro Vega II has a 341% higher aggregate performance score, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 1596.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega II is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
