RTX A2000 Mobile vs Iris Xe Graphics MAX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics MAX with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics MAX
2020
4 GB LPDDR4X, 25 Watt
4.95

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms Iris Xe Graphics MAX by a whopping 403% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking633220
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency14.1518.72
ArchitectureGeneration 12.1 (2020−2021)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameDG1GA106
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date31 October 2020 (4 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 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 cores7682560
Core clock speedno data893 MHz
Boost clock speed1650 MHz1358 MHz
Number of transistorsno data13,250 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate79.20108.6
Floating-point processing power2.534 TFLOPS6.953 TFLOPS
ROPs2448
TMUs4880
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x4PCIe 4.0 x16
WidthIGPno data

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 typeLPDDR4XGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4.3 GB/s1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth68.26 GB/s176.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.21.2
CUDA-8.6

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 MAX 4.95
RTX A2000 Mobile 24.88
+403%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Iris Xe Graphics MAX 1971
RTX A2000 Mobile 9907
+403%

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 HD14−16
−464%
79
+464%
1440p8−9
−438%
43
+438%
4K7−8
−429%
37
+429%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 135
+0%
135
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 72
+0%
72
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 110
+0%
110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Dota 2 119
+0%
119
+0%
Far Cry 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 108
+0%
108
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 53
+0%
53
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 69
+0%
69
+0%
World of Tanks 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+0%
20
+0%
Dota 2 129
+0%
129
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 94
+0%
94
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 50
+0%
50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+0%
50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
World of Tanks 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 63
+0%
63
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 44
+0%
44
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+0%
44
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 72
+0%
72
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics MAX and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 464% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 438% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 429% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.95 24.88
Recency 31 October 2020 12 April 2021
Chip lithography 10 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 95 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics MAX has 280% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 402.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics MAX in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics MAX is a desktop card while RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation 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 MAX
Iris Xe Graphics MAX
NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX A2000 Mobile

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.


3.3 219 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 100 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile 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.