Radeon RX 560 Mobile vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Radeon RX 560 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
560 Mobile outperforms Tiger Lake-U Graphics G7 by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 505 | 479 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.67 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.01 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Baffin |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 76.93 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.462 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 35−40
−22.9%
| 43
+22.9%
|
| 4K | 30−35
−20%
| 36
+20%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.33 |
| 4K | no data | 2.78 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−55.4%
|
87
+55.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−44.1%
|
49
+44.1%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−6.6%
|
95−100
+6.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−7.7%
|
150−160
+7.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−7.4%
|
70−75
+7.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−12.5%
|
63
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−11.4%
|
35−40
+11.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−32.4%
|
45
+32.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35
+45.8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−6.6%
|
95−100
+6.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−7.4%
|
70−75
+7.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+162%
|
13
−162%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+20%
|
20
−20%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+12%
|
50
−12%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−9.7%
|
75−80
+9.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−9.6%
|
110−120
+9.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−13%
|
24−27
+13%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−13.6%
|
24−27
+13.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−12.2%
|
55−60
+12.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−11.8%
|
35−40
+11.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−300%
|
36
+300%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and RX 560 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 23% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 20% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 162% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 performs better in 4 tests (6%)
- RX 560 Mobile performs better in 37 tests (56%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.76 | 9.68 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 5 January 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
RX 560 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 10.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
