Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce GT 330M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 330M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms GT 330M by a whopping 1243% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1220 | 524 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 57 |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | N11P-GE1 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 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 cores | 48 | 80 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.200 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 0.1214 gflops | no data |
| Gigaflops | 182 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR2, GDDR3, DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 | 18
−5.6%
| 19
+5.6%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 9 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 13 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−333%
|
13
+333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−220%
|
16
+220%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−291%
|
40−45
+291%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−317%
|
24−27
+317%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−107%
|
62
+107%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−200%
|
15
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−291%
|
40−45
+291%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−63.3%
|
49
+63.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8
+167%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−140%
|
12
+140%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16
+45.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−233%
|
20
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−10%
|
11
+10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−83.3%
|
55−60
+83.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−4600%
|
45−50
+4600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 3−4 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 330M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 6% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.56 | 7.52 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 28 Watt |
GT 330M has 21.7% lower power consumption.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 1242.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
