Radeon R7 M350 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and Radeon R7 M350, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms R7 M350 by a whopping 205% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 478 | 774 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.72 | 5.96 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Meso |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (9 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 | 96 | 384 |
| Compute units | no data | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7795 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 16 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
| Mantle | - | + |
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 | 27
+238%
| 8−9
−238%
|
| 1440p | 16
+220%
| 5−6
−220%
|
| 4K | 11
+267%
| 3−4
−267%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Elden Ring | 21
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Valorant | 26
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Elden Ring | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+238%
|
16−18
−238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+243%
|
21−24
−243%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| World of Tanks | 96
+220%
|
30−33
−220%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+236%
|
14−16
−236%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+240%
|
10−11
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+243%
|
21−24
−243%
|
| Valorant | 23
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Elden Ring | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+219%
|
21−24
−219%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Elden Ring | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and R7 M350 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 238% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 220% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 267% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.24 | 3.03 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 5 May 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 35 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 205% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M350 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
