GeForce GT 635M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GeForce GT 635M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
9.47
+553%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GT 635M by a whopping 553% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking467994
Place by popularity87not in top-100
Power efficiency23.192.84
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeGF116
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)22 March 2012 (12 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 cores96Up to 144
Core clock speed400 MHzUp to 675 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz753 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data16.20
Floating-point processing powerno data0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno dataUp to 192bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno dataUp to 43.2 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray-+
Optimus-+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_112 API
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.5
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.47
+553%
GT 635M 1.45

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 96EUs 6504
+486%
GT 635M 1110

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 25978
+420%
GT 635M 4995

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 96EUs 5139
+585%
GT 635M 750

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 HD26
+8.3%
24
−8.3%
1440p15
+650%
2−3
−650%
4K11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20
+400%
4−5
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+267%
6−7
−267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21
+600%
3−4
−600%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 36
+800%
4−5
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+300%
4−5
−300%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Hitman 3 24
+300%
6−7
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 124
+727%
14−16
−727%
Metro Exodus 35
+600%
5−6
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90
+173%
30−35
−173%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+283%
6−7
−283%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+800%
2−3
−800%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32
+700%
4−5
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+225%
4−5
−225%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Hitman 3 23
+283%
6−7
−283%
Horizon Zero Dawn 112
+647%
14−16
−647%
Metro Exodus 28
+600%
4−5
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
+275%
8−9
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+136%
10−12
−136%
Watch Dogs: Legion 84
+155%
30−35
−155%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 23
+475%
4−5
−475%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+175%
4−5
−175%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Hitman 3 20
+233%
6−7
−233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 23
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+200%
8−9
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+84.8%
30−35
−84.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+600%
2−3
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+583%
6−7
−583%
Hitman 3 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+757%
7−8
−757%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GT 635M compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 8% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 650% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1000% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1475% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs surpassed GT 635M in all 49 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.47 1.45
Recency 15 August 2020 22 March 2012
Chip lithography 10 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 35 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 553.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M
GeForce GT 635M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 982 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 464 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.