Radeon PRO W7700 vs UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
2021
2.29

PRO W7700 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) by a whopping 2076% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking84661
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.88
Power efficiencyno data18.21
ArchitectureGen. 12 (2021−2023)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeNavi 32
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date30 March 2021 (3 years ago)13 November 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores163072
Core clock speed350 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistorsno data28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data190 Watt
Texture fill rateno data499.2
Floating-point processing powerno data31.95 TFLOPS
ROPsno data96
TMUsno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data16 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 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 Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort 2.1

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.

DirectX12_112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.2
Vulkan-1.3

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 HD12
−2067%
260−270
+2067%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−2025%
170−180
+2025%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−2005%
400−450
+2005%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1983%
750−800
+1983%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−2025%
170−180
+2025%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−2005%
400−450
+2005%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
−1991%
230−240
+1991%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−2054%
280−290
+2054%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1983%
750−800
+1983%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−2025%
170−180
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−2005%
400−450
+2005%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
−2043%
300−310
+2043%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1983%
750−800
+1983%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
−2054%
280−290
+2054%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%

This is how UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 2067% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.29 49.82
Recency 30 March 2021 13 November 2023
Chip lithography 10 nm 5 nm

PRO W7700 has a 2075.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation 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.


Intel UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

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.


1.4 358 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 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.