Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs Radeon Graphics 384SP

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated623
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data14.01
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameCezanneDG1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date13 April 2021 (3 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 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 cores384768
Core clock speed300 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1700 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors9,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology7 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate40.8079.20
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs824
TMUs2448

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x4
WidthIGPIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeSystem SharedLPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared4.3 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data68.26 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.7 (6.4)6.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.31.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 April 2021 31 October 2020
Chip lithography 7 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 25 Watt

Graphics 384SP has an age advantage of 5 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Iris Xe Graphics MAX, on the other hand, has 80% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Graphics 384SP and Iris Xe Graphics MAX. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP
Radeon Graphics 384SP
Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Iris Xe Graphics MAX

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.


4.4 20 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 211 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics MAX 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.