Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce 8200M G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8200M G and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms 8200M G by a whopping 4947% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1424 | 530 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
Power efficiency | no data | 18.61 |
Architecture | no data | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
GPU code name | MCP77MV MCP79MVL | Tiger Lake Xe |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 3 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 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 | 8 | 80 |
Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 400 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 10 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 28 Watt |
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.
Shared memory | + | + |
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 | 10 | 12_1 |
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 | -0−1 | 19 |
1440p | -0−1 | 10 |
4K | -0−1 | 15 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
11
+37.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30
+500%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10
+25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−333%
|
26
+333%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−380%
|
24
+380%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6
+50%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−475%
|
21−24
+475%
|
World of Tanks | 10−11
−1050%
|
110−120
+1050%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5
−60%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4
+100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
1440p
High Preset
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
Valorant | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
4K
High Preset
Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 21−24 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16
+6.7%
|
Valorant | 0−1 | 7−8 |
Full HD
Low Preset
Elden Ring | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Valorant | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
World of Tanks | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8200M G is 60% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 8200M G is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 29 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.15 | 7.57 |
Recency | 3 June 2008 | 15 August 2020 |
Chip lithography | 80 nm | 10 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 4946.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200M G in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.