Radeon Vega 7 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms Vega 7 by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 450 | 529 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 39 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.48 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 cores | 96 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 27−30
+22.7%
| 22
−22.7%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
+25%
| 28
−25%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+20%
| 20
−20%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+46.7%
|
45−50
−46.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+46.7%
|
45−50
−46.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+46.7%
|
45−50
−46.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 23% faster in 1080p
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 25% faster in 1440p
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 20% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.03 | 7.46 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 7 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has a 34.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Radeon Vega 7 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
