Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms 9400M (G) / ION (LE) by a whopping 2352% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1328 | 540 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.77 | 18.61 |
| Architecture | no data | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | MCP79MX | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 October 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 | 16 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 282 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12_1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
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3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution.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.
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 | 20 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 10 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 14 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1050%
|
23
+1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−192%
|
75−80
+192%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−785%
|
110−120
+785%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−290%
|
39
+290%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−450%
|
22
+450%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−192%
|
75−80
+192%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−260%
|
36
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−271%
|
24−27
+271%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−175%
|
11
+175%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−192%
|
75−80
+192%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 9400M (G) / ION (LE) is 40% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 1850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 9400M (G) / ION (LE) is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 32 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 7.60 |
| Recency | 14 October 2008 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 28 Watt |
9400M (G) / ION (LE) has 133.3% lower power consumption.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 2351.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 550% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9400M (G) / ION (LE) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
