GeForce GTX 465 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with GeForce GTX 465, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
9.24
+33.9%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms GTX 465 by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking478560
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.22
Power efficiency22.722.37
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeGF100
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)31 May 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$279

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 cores96352
Core clock speed400 MHz607 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt200 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data26.75
Floating-point processing powerno data0.8554 TFLOPS
Compute performanceno data30x
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data44

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0 x 16
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 6-pin
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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1603 MHz (3206 data rate)
Memory bandwidthno data102.6 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 dataTwo Dual Link DVIMini HDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

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.

DirectX12_112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.2
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

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 HD27
+50%
18−21
−50%
1440p16
+60%
10−12
−60%
4K11
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data15.50
1440pno data27.90
4Kno data34.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Elden Ring 21
+50%
14−16
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+40%
10−11
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 38
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%
Metro Exodus 29
+38.1%
21−24
−38.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Valorant 26
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+50%
8−9
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Dota 2 28
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Elden Ring 22
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Far Cry 5 31
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Fortnite 50−55
+35%
40−45
−35%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Metro Exodus 19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+44%
50−55
−44%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Valorant 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
World of Tanks 96
+37.1%
70−75
−37.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Dota 2 47
+34.3%
35−40
−34.3%
Far Cry 5 34
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 4 24
+50%
16−18
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+44%
50−55
−44%
Valorant 23
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Elden Ring 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
World of Tanks 65−70
+34%
50−55
−34%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 19
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Valorant 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
Elden Ring 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
+60%
5−6
−60%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 20
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Fortnite 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 11
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Valorant 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and GTX 465 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 50% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 60% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 38% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.24 6.90
Recency 15 August 2020 31 May 2010
Chip lithography 10 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 200 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 33.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 614.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 465 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 465 is a desktop one.


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 GTX 465
GeForce GTX 465

Other comparisons

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.


3.6 999 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 100 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 465 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.