Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs GeForce MX450

Aggregate performance score

GeForce MX450
2020
2 GB GDDR5, GDDR6, 25 Watt
9.65
+3%

GeForce MX450 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a minimal 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking428440
Place by popularitynot in top-10081
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameN17S-G5 / GP107-670-A1Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 August 2020 (3 years ago)15 August 2020 (3 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores89696
Core clock speed1395 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1575 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt (12 - 29 Watt TGP)28 Watt
Texture fill rate100.8no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX450 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x4no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5, GDDR6no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed10000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth64.03 GB/sno data
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 outputsno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2no data
CUDA7.5no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GeForce MX450 9.65
+3%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.37

GeForce MX450 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by 3% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX450 8250
+26.5%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6524

GeForce MX450 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by 26% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX450 22831
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 25394
+11.2%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GeForce MX450 by 11% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GeForce MX450 4725
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5139
+8.8%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GeForce MX450 by 9% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GeForce MX450 27570
+2.4%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 26930

GeForce MX450 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by 2% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GeForce MX450 335125
+60.7%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 208526

GeForce MX450 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by 61% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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 HD28
+7.7%
26
−7.7%
1440p15
−6.7%
16
+6.7%
4K26
+100%
13
−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 32
+60%
20
−60%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
−10%
22
+10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10
−110%
21
+110%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−71.4%
36
+71.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 22
+37.5%
16
−37.5%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 36
−8.3%
39
+8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 56
+21.7%
46
−21.7%
Metro Exodus 55
+57.1%
35
−57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+165%
17
−165%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50
+31.6%
38
−31.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 25
+13.6%
22
−13.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+5.3%
19
−5.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
−200%
18
+200%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+5%
20−22
−5%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 58
+87.1%
31
−87.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 16
+14.3%
14
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 20
−10%
22
+10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 39
+14.7%
34
−14.7%
Metro Exodus 31
+14.8%
27
−14.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35
+133%
15
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 28
+12%
25
−12%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+10%
30
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18
+28.6%
14
−28.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+42.9%
14
−42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 11
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−9.5%
23
+9.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
−37.5%
11
+37.5%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
Metro Exodus 28
+16.7%
24
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+42.9%
14
−42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7
−129%
16−18
+129%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 31
+121%
14
−121%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Hitman 3 12
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−40%
7
+40%
Far Cry 5 20
+25%
16
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
−5.6%
19
+5.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 41
+116%
19
−116%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−71.4%
12
+71.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how GeForce MX450 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX450 is 8% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 7% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX450 is 100% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX450 is 165% faster than the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 200% faster than the GeForce MX450.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX450 is ahead in 36 tests (50%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 13 tests (18%)
  • there's a draw in 23 tests (32%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.65 9.37
Chip lithography 12 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 28 Watt

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce MX450 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce MX450
GeForce MX450
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

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.


3.6 1230 votes

Rate GeForce MX450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 811 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 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.