Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Radeon RX Vega M GL

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega M GL
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
8.73
+10.1%

RX Vega M GL outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking453487
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.6122.37
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 22Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2018 (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 cores128096
Core clock speed931 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate80.88no data
Floating-point processing power2.588 TFLOPSno 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).

InterfaceIGPno 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 typeHBM2no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width1024 Bitno data
Memory clock speed700 MHzno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK 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-

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 HD27−30
+0%
27
+0%
1440p16−18
+6.7%
15
−6.7%
4K12−14
+0%
12
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+90%
30
−90%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+50%
96
−50%
Dota 2 65−70
+33.3%
51
−33.3%
Fortnite 55−60
+171%
21
−171%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+112%
17
−112%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−20%
30
+20%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 65−70
+44.7%
47
−44.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+78.6%
14
−78.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+280%
15
−280%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+150%
8
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−20%
12
+20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 35−40
+75%
20
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

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%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35
+0%
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%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 31
+0%
31
+0%
Metro Exodus 15
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 112
+0%
112
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 23
+0%
23
+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%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+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%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how RX Vega M GL and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • RX Vega M GL is 7% faster in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

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

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 280% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 20% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL is ahead in 15 tests (24%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • there's a draw in 46 tests (73%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.73 7.93
Recency 1 February 2018 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 28 Watt

RX Vega M GL has a 10.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 132.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

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 RX Vega M GL
Radeon RX Vega M GL
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Other comparisons

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.


3.2 22 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1008 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega M GL or Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.