Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce 8800 Ultra
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8800 Ultra with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms 8800 Ultra by a whopping 355% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 952 | 537 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.67 | 18.64 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | G80 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $829 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 612 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 612 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 681 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.17 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3871 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 24 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 270 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1080 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 103.7 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | no data |
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 | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 4−5
−375%
| 19
+375%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−400%
| 10
+400%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−400%
| 15
+400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 207.25 | no data |
| 1440p | 414.50 | no data |
| 4K | 276.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how 8800 Ultra and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 375% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 400% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 400% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 7.50 |
| Recency | 2 May 2007 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 354.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 800% more advanced lithography process, and 510.7% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 Ultra in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8800 Ultra is a desktop card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.
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.
