ATI Radeon X1800 XT vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking465not rated
Place by popularity75not in top-100
Power efficiency23.35no data
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeR520
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)1 October 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$549

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 cores96no data
Core clock speed400 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data321 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt113 Watt
Texture fill rateno data9.600
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data16

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 dataPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin

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 dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data700 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data44.8 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 data2x DVI, 1x S-Video

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_19.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 15 August 2020 1 October 2005
Chip lithography 10 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 113 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has an age advantage of 14 years, a 800% more advanced lithography process, and 303.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and Radeon X1800 XT. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Radeon X1800 XT 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
ATI Radeon X1800 XT
Radeon X1800 XT

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.


3.6 955 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 12 votes

Rate Radeon X1800 XT 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.