ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4871549
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency22.38no data
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeRS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)5 October 2002 (22 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 cores962
Core clock speed400 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistorsno data30 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data0.37
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data2

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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 4x
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_17.0
OpenGLno data1.4
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD27no data
1440p15no data
4K12no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 19 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Battlefield 5 41 no data
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 16 0−1
Far Cry 5 26 no data
Fortnite 30 no data
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Forza Horizon 5 35 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Valorant 124
+417%
24−27
−417%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Battlefield 5 35 no data
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 96
+1100%
8−9
−1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 13 0−1
Dota 2 51
+629%
7−8
−629%
Far Cry 5 25 no data
Fortnite 21 no data
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Forza Horizon 5 31 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 17 no data
Metro Exodus 15 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+900%
3−4
−900%
Valorant 112
+367%
24−27
−367%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Dota 2 47
+571%
7−8
−571%
Far Cry 5 23 no data
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+367%
3−4
−367%
Valorant 23
−4.3%
24−27
+4.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15 no data

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 7 no data
Metro Exodus 9−10 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 no data
Valorant 95−100 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 7 no data
Far Cry 5 16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20 no data

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8 no data
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Metro Exodus 4−5 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12 no data
Valorant 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11 no data
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 no data
Dota 2 20 no data
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 4400% faster.
  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the ATI IGP 340M is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 20 tests (91%)
  • ATI IGP 340M is ahead in 2 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 15 August 2020 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 10 nm 180 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has an age advantage of 17 years, and a 1700% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

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
ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M

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 1008 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.