Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Radeon R9 270

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.17
+2.3%

R9 270 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking417421
Place by popularitynot in top-10021
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.89no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameCuracaoTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (10 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rate74.00no data
Floating-point processing power2.368 gflopsno 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 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 typeGDDR5DDR4
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory bandwidth179.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 12DirectX 12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-

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.

R9 270 11.17
+2.3%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 10.92

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.

R9 270 5930
+23%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 4820

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
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 47 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.17 10.92
Recency 13 November 2013 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm

R9 270 has a 2.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 270 and Iris Xe Graphics G7.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 is a desktop card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook 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 R9 270
Radeon R9 270
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7
Iris Xe Graphics G7

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.


3.9 594 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2320 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 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.