Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs ATI Radeon HD 3870

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 3870 with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.

ATI HD 3870
2007
512 MB GDDR4, 106 Watt
1.44

Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms ATI HD 3870 by a whopping 256% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1003635
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Power efficiency0.9314.07
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameRV670DG1
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date19 November 2007 (17 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$269 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores320768
Core clock speed777 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors666 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)106 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate12.4379.20
Floating-point processing power0.4973 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs1624
TMUs1648

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR4LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1126 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth72.06 GB/s68.26 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX10.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.2

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.

ATI HD 3870 1.44
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.13
+256%

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.

ATI HD 3870 555
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971
+255%

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 HD7−8
−286%
27
+286%
1440p5−6
−300%
20
+300%
4K4−5
−300%
16
+300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p38.43no data
1440p53.80no data
4K67.25no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how ATI HD 3870 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 286% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 300% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.44 5.13
Recency 19 November 2007 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 106 Watt 25 Watt

Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 256.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 450% more advanced lithography process, and 324% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3870 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 3870 is a desktop card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a notebook one.

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.


ATI Radeon HD 3870
Radeon HD 3870
Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics

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.


3.6 163 votes

Rate Radeon HD 3870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 274 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 3870 or Iris Xe MAX Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.