Radeon R9 285 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Radeon R9 285, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.94

R9 285 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking425315
Place by popularity26not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data8.76
Power efficiencyno data6.26
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeTonga
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)2 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$249

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 cores961792
Core clock speedno data918 MHz
Number of transistorsno data5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data190 Watt
Texture fill rateno data102.8
Floating-point processing powerno data3.29 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data112

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data221 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeDDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1375 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data176.0 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 HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2
HDMI-+

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.

DirectXDirectX 12_112 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1
Vulkan-1.2.170

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 10.94
R9 285 17.34
+58.5%

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 4820
R9 285 8570
+77.8%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−47.1%
50−55
+47.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−55.2%
90−95
+55.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−57.1%
55−60
+57.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−47.1%
50−55
+47.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
−55.2%
90−95
+55.2%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−57.1%
55−60
+57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−57.1%
55−60
+57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−42.9%
40−45
+42.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Battlefield 5 30−35
−47.1%
50−55
+47.1%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
−54.9%
110−120
+54.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−42.9%
40−45
+42.9%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−50%
24−27
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−50%
27−30
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−42.9%
30−33
+42.9%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−50%
18−20
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−50%
24−27
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−53.1%
75−80
+53.1%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−56.3%
75−80
+56.3%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Battlefield 5 10−11
−40%
14−16
+40%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−50%
21−24
+50%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.94 17.34
Recency 15 August 2020 2 September 2014
Chip lithography 10 nm 28 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

R9 285, on the other hand, has a 58.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Radeon R9 285 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
Iris Xe Graphics G7
AMD Radeon R9 285
Radeon R9 285

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.


3.5 2549 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 77 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 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.