Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Place in the ranking	700	18
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.56	18.08
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	RDNA 4.0 (2025)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	Navi 48
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 August 2020 (5 years ago)	23 July 2025 (recently)

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	48	4096
Core clock speed	350 MHz	1660 MHz
Boost clock speed	1450 MHz	2920 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	300 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	747.5
Floating-point processing power	no data	47.84 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	128
TMUs	no data	256
Tensor Cores	no data	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	64

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	267 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	no data	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	no data	32 GB
Memory bus width	no data	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	644.6 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-
Resizable BAR	-	+

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

4x DisplayPort 2.1a

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	12_1	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.8
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.2
Vulkan	-	1.3
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

−1547%

280−290
+1547%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	46 −1530%	750−800 +1530%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 −1536%	180−190 +1536%
God of War	13 −1515%	210−220 +1515%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	19 −1479%	300−310 +1479%
Counter-Strike 2	29 −1452%	450−500 +1452%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1567%	150−160 +1567%
Far Cry 5	16 −1525%	260−270 +1525%
Fortnite	24−27 −1500%	400−450 +1500%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −1400%	300−310 +1400%
Forza Horizon 5	15 −1567%	250−260 +1567%
God of War	10−11 −1500%	160−170 +1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −1547%	280−290 +1547%
Valorant	36 −1567%	600−650 +1567%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16 −1525%	260−270 +1525%
Counter-Strike 2	7 −1471%	110−120 +1471%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	25 −1500%	400−450 +1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1567%	150−160 +1567%
Dota 2	26 −1438%	400−450 +1438%
Far Cry 5	15 −1567%	250−260 +1567%
Fortnite	24−27 −1500%	400−450 +1500%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −1400%	300−310 +1400%
Forza Horizon 5	14 −1543%	230−240 +1543%
God of War	10−11 −1500%	160−170 +1500%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −1500%	160−170 +1500%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −1525%	130−140 +1525%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −1547%	280−290 +1547%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 −1567%	250−260 +1567%
Valorant	55−60 −1507%	900−950 +1507%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 −1543%	230−240 +1543%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −1567%	150−160 +1567%
Dota 2	24 −1567%	400−450 +1567%
Far Cry 5	14 −1543%	230−240 +1543%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −1400%	300−310 +1400%
God of War	10−11 −1500%	160−170 +1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −1547%	280−290 +1547%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −1525%	130−140 +1525%
Valorant	55−60 −1507%	900−950 +1507%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

24−27

−1500%

400−450
+1500%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1525%	130−140 +1525%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	30−35 −1567%	550−600 +1567%
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5 −1525%	65−70 +1525%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 −1567%	550−600 +1567%
Valorant	45−50 −1530%	750−800 +1530%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −1525%	130−140 +1525%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −1500%	160−170 +1500%
God of War	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1500%	80−85 +1500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

8−9
−1525%

130−140

+1525%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −1525%	260−270 +1525%
Valorant	21−24 −1567%	350−400 +1567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1500%	16−18 +1500%
Dota 2	14−16 −1543%	230−240 +1543%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1500%	80−85 +1500%
God of War	3−4 −1567%	50−55 +1567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 −1500%	80−85 +1500%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

5−6

−1500%

80−85
+1500%

This is how UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs and AI PRO R9700 compete in popular games:

AI PRO R9700 is 1547% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.25	71.18
Recency	15 August 2020	23 July 2025
Chip lithography	10 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	300 Watt

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has 971.4% lower power consumption.

AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has a 1574.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon AI PRO R9700 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is a notebook graphics card while Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a workstation one.

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.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Radeon AI PRO R9700

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Radeon RX Vega 5

Radeon AI PRO R9700

RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H)

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 536 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

4.6 9 votes

Rate Radeon AI PRO R9700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs or Radeon AI PRO R9700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.

Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

Contents

Primary details

Detailed specifications

Form factor & compatibility

VRAM capacity and type

Connectivity and outputs

Supported technologies

API and SDK compatibility

Gaming performance

Average FPS across all PC games

FPS performance in popular games

Pros & cons summary

Vote for your favorite

Other comparisons

Community ratings

Comments