GeForce RTX 5080 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 by a whopping 852% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 459 | 3 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 40.82 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.11 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 96 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 128 |
| TMUs | no data | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 | no data | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | DDR4 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 960.0 GB/s |
| 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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| 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 | DirectX 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 18−21
−972%
| 193
+972%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−863%
| 154
+863%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−920%
| 102
+920%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.18 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.49 |
| 4K | no data | 9.79 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−266%
|
110−120
+266%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−775%
|
350−400
+775%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−848%
|
550−600
+848%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−797%
|
350−400
+797%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−809%
|
700−750
+809%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1671%
|
650−700
+1671%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−266%
|
110−120
+266%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−397%
|
170−180
+397%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−293%
|
157
+293%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−431%
|
300−350
+431%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−797%
|
350−400
+797%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−757%
|
300−310
+757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−570%
|
180−190
+570%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−179%
|
210−220
+179%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−500%
|
150−160
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−480%
|
170−180
+480%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1671%
|
650−700
+1671%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
−95.1%
|
270−280
+95.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−266%
|
110−120
+266%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−757%
|
300−310
+757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−348%
|
170−180
+348%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−797%
|
350−400
+797%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−179%
|
210−220
+179%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−833%
|
280−290
+833%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−848%
|
550−600
+848%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−823%
|
120−130
+823%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−847%
|
180−190
+847%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−1063%
|
90−95
+1063%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−820%
|
230−240
+820%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−358%
|
85−90
+358%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−627%
|
160−170
+627%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−809%
|
200−210
+809%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−820%
|
230−240
+820%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−850%
|
190−200
+850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−2400%
|
120−130
+2400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−967%
|
60−65
+967%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−850%
|
190−200
+850%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−911%
|
90−95
+911%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−850%
|
190−200
+850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−775%
|
100−110
+775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−823%
|
120−130
+823%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−831%
|
270−280
+831%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−850%
|
95−100
+850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 222
+0%
|
222
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Valorant | 650−700
+0%
|
650−700
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 972% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 863% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 920% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5080 is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is ahead in 23 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.78 | 93.09 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 4 nm |
RTX 5080 has a 851.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
