Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Radeon Vega 3 Efficient

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated621
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data14.13
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameRavenDG1
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date26 May 2018 (6 years ago)31 October 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 cores192768
Core clock speed300 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors4,940 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate12.0079.20
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs424
TMUs1248

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x4
WidthIGPno 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 typeSystem SharedLPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2133 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data68.26 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 26 May 2018 31 October 2020
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 25 Watt

Vega 3 Efficient has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Vega 3 Efficient and Iris Xe MAX Graphics. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon Vega 3 Efficient is a desktop card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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 Vega 3 Efficient
Radeon Vega 3 Efficient
Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics

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.


3.4 44 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 3 Efficient on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 252 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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.