Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Radeon R9 380X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon R9 360 OEM Radeon R9 370 Radeon R9 370 1024SP Radeon R9 370X Radeon R9 380 Radeon R9 380 OEM Radeon R9 380X Radeon R9 390 Radeon R9 390 X2 Radeon R9 390X Radeon R9 390X2
VS
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe G1 UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380X with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

R9 380X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
16.01
+111%

R9 380X outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R9 380X R9 380X
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking348540
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.14no data
Power efficiency5.7818.61
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameAntiguaTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date19 November 2015 (9 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores204880
Compute units32no data
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate124.2no data
Floating-point processing power3.973 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs128no 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
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors​2 x 6-pinno data
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed970 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth182.4 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+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan+-
Mantle+-

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.

R9 380X 16.01
+111%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.60

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 380X 9510
+137%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 4010

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 HD40−45
+100%
20
−100%
1440p21−24
+110%
10
−110%
4K27−30
+92.9%
14
−92.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.73no data
1440p10.90no data
4K8.48no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 16
+0%
16
+0%
Battlefield 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+0%
12
+0%
Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5
+0%
5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9
+0%
9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+0%
6
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how R9 380X and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • R9 380X is 100% faster in 1080p
  • R9 380X is 110% faster in 1440p
  • R9 380X is 93% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 16.01 7.60
Recency 19 November 2015 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 28 Watt

R9 380X has a 110.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 578.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380X is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380X is a desktop card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook 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 R9 380X
Radeon R9 380X
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R9 380X Radeon R9 380X
vs
GTX 960 GeForce GTX 960
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
vs
Vega 7 Radeon Vega 7
R9 380X Radeon R9 380X
vs
R9 380 Radeon R9 380
G100 OEM NVIDIA GeForce G100 OEM
vs
Radeon 520 Radeon 520
GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB NVIDIA GTX 1060 Max-Q 6 GB
vs
GTX 1080 11Gbps 1080 11Gbps
Graphics 384SP Mobile AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP Mobile
vs
RX 570 RX 570
NVS 150M NVIDIA Quadro NVS 150M
vs
RX 580 RX 580
ATI X1300 XT AGP ATI Radeon X1300 XT AGP
vs
RX 580 RX 580
HD Graphics 5600 Intel HD Graphics 5600
vs
R7 360 R7 360
UHD Graphics 64EUs (Alder Lake 12th Gen) Intel UHD Graphics 64EUs (Alder Lake 12th Gen)
vs
R7 360 896SP R7 360 896SP
HD 8690M AMD Radeon HD 8690M
vs
R9 390 R9 390
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
vs
R9 380 OEM R9 380 OEM
Quadro M500M NVIDIA Quadro M500M
vs
R9 270 R9 270

Community ratings

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

3.9 187 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 947 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 380X or Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.