RTX A500 vs Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe MAX Graphics with RTX A500, including specs and performance data.
RTX A500 outperforms Iris Xe MAX Graphics by a whopping 240% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 635 | 326 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.93 | 19.73 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG1 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 31 October 2020 (4 years ago) | 10 November 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 cores | 768 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1650 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 79.20 | 113.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.534 TFLOPS | 7.25 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | LPDDR4X | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2133 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 68.26 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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
−233%
| 90−95
+233%
|
| 1440p | 20
−225%
| 65−70
+225%
|
| 4K | 16
−213%
| 50−55
+213%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
−216%
|
120−130
+216%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−227%
|
85−90
+227%
|
| Fortnite | 34
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−233%
|
200−210
+233%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35
−214%
|
110−120
+214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−237%
|
280−290
+237%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−225%
|
130−140
+225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
−220%
|
80−85
+220%
|
| Fortnite | 31
−223%
|
100−105
+223%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−233%
|
200−210
+233%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 33
−233%
|
110−120
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
−216%
|
120−130
+216%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
−233%
|
80−85
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−216%
|
60−65
+216%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−233%
|
200−210
+233%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 22
−218%
|
70−75
+218%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−224%
|
120−130
+224%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−224%
|
110−120
+224%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−240%
|
180−190
+240%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−224%
|
55−60
+224%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−233%
|
80−85
+233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−225%
|
65−70
+225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
This is how Iris Xe MAX Graphics and RTX A500 compete in popular games:
- RTX A500 is 233% faster in 1080p
- RTX A500 is 225% faster in 1440p
- RTX A500 is 213% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.41 | 14.99 |
| Recency | 31 October 2020 | 10 November 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 60 Watt |
Iris Xe MAX Graphics has 140% lower power consumption.
RTX A500, on the other hand, has a 239.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a notebook card while RTX A500 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
