Radeon RX 6550M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

Place in the ranking	530	218
Place by popularity	73	not in top-100
Power efficiency	18.61	21.57
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	4 January 2023 (2 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	80	1024
Core clock speed	400 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	181.8
Floating-point processing power	no data	5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	no data	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	no data	4 GB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	144.0 GB/s
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

no data

Portable Device Dependent

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	12_1	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	no data	6.7
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	2.2
Vulkan	-	1.3

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.57

RX 6550M 25.07
+231%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 5332

RX 6550M 20506
+285%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 4010

RX 6550M 14696
+266%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 1180

RX 6550M 4546
+285%

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	19 −274%	71 +274%
1440p	10 −120%	22 +120%
4K	15 −200%	45−50 +200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	11 −382%	53 +382%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 −264%	50−55 +264%
Elden Ring	18 −356%	80−85 +356%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Counter-Strike 2	9 −400%	45 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 −325%	50−55 +325%
Forza Horizon 4	30 −310%	123 +310%
Metro Exodus	27 −144%	65−70 +144%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Valorant	18 −461%	100−110 +461%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Counter-Strike 2	10 −250%	35 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 −920%	50−55 +920%
Dota 2	22 −291%	85−90 +291%
Elden Ring	17 −382%	80−85 +382%
Far Cry 5	26 −26.9%	33 +26.9%
Fortnite	45−50 −180%	120−130 +180%
Forza Horizon 4	24 −321%	101 +321%
Grand Theft Auto V	13 −562%	85−90 +562%
Metro Exodus	17 −288%	65−70 +288%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −157%	150−160 +157%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6 −817%	55−60 +817%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −252%	80−85 +252%
Valorant	14 −621%	100−110 +621%
World of Tanks	110−120 −124%	250−260 +124%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Counter-Strike 2	5 −480%	29 +480%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 −1175%	50−55 +1175%
Dota 2	36 −139%	85−90 +139%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −133%	75−80 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	20 −340%	88 +340%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −157%	150−160 +157%
Valorant	24−27 −304%	100−110 +304%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6 −600%	40−45 +600%
Elden Ring	10−11 −340%	40−45 +340%
Grand Theft Auto V	6 −600%	40−45 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −338%	170−180 +338%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
World of Tanks	55−60 −202%	160−170 +202%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −257%	50−55 +257%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −356%	70−75 +356%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −319%	65−70 +319%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −375%	55−60 +375%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 −270%	35−40 +270%
Valorant	18−20 −258%	65−70 +258%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%
Dota 2	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Elden Ring	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −144%	40−45 +144%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −250%	75−80 +250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −139%	40−45 +139%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −333%	24−27 +333%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Dota 2	16 −175%	40−45 +175%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −267%	30−35 +267%
Fortnite	7−8 −343%	30−35 +343%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −375%	35−40 +375%
Valorant	7−8 −371%	30−35 +371%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RX 6550M is 274% faster in 1080p
RX 6550M is 120% faster in 1440p
RX 6550M is 200% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 2200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 6550M surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.57	25.07
Recency	15 August 2020	4 January 2023
Chip lithography	10 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	80 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has 185.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 231.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.

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