Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs GeForce GTX 970M

Place in the ranking	355	625
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.62	14.13
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code name	GM204	DG1
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 October 2014 (10 years ago)	31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,560.89	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1280	768
Core clock speed	924 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1038 MHz	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	83.04	79.20
Floating-point processing power	2.657 TFLOPS	2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	24
TMUs	80	48

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x4
Width	no data	IGP
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	GDDR5	LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2500 MHz	4.3 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	120 GB/s	68.26 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	No outputs	No outputs
VGA аnalog display support	+	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
BatteryBoost	+	-
Ansel	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2
CUDA	+	-

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. 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.

GTX 970M 14.85
+189%

Iris Xe Graphics MAX 5.13

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 970M 5710
+190%

Iris Xe Graphics MAX 1971

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:

900p	136 +202%	45−50 −202%
Full HD	56 +211%	18−20 −211%
1440p	25 +213%	8−9 −213%
4K	22 +214%	7−8 −214%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	45.73	no data
1440p	102.44	no data
4K	116.40	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Elden Ring	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	46 +229%	14−16 −229%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +233%	18−20 −233%
Metro Exodus	41 +193%	14−16 −193%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
Valorant	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	46 +229%	14−16 −229%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Dota 2	33 +230%	10−11 −230%
Elden Ring	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +206%	18−20 −206%
Fortnite	59 +228%	18−20 −228%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +233%	18−20 −233%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 +206%	16−18 −206%
Metro Exodus	29 +190%	10−11 −190%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	149 +198%	50−55 −198%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	44 +214%	14−16 −214%
Valorant	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%
World of Tanks	190−200 +197%	65−70 −197%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40 +233%	12−14 −233%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Dota 2	50−55 +194%	18−20 −194%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +206%	18−20 −206%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +233%	18−20 −233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 +217%	12−14 −217%
Valorant	55−60 +228%	18−20 −228%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Elden Ring	21−24 +229%	7−8 −229%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +191%	45−50 −191%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
World of Tanks	100−110 +197%	35−40 −197%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27 +200%	9−10 −200%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +200%	12−14 −200%
Metro Exodus	25 +213%	8−9 −213%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Valorant	35−40 +208%	12−14 −208%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Dota 2	33 +230%	10−11 −230%
Elden Ring	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Grand Theft Auto V	33 +230%	10−11 −230%
Metro Exodus	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 +217%	12−14 −217%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	33 +230%	10−11 −230%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	13 +225%	4−5 −225%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Dota 2	24−27 +225%	8−9 −225%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%
Fortnite	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%
Valorant	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%

This is how GTX 970M and Iris Xe Graphics MAX compete in popular games:

GTX 970M is 202% faster in 900p
GTX 970M is 211% faster in 1080p
GTX 970M is 213% faster in 1440p
GTX 970M is 214% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.85	5.13
Recency	7 October 2014	31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm

GTX 970M has a 189.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics MAX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 970M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics MAX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook card while Iris Xe Graphics MAX is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.