Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Radeon HD 6970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6970 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms HD 6970 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 548 | 540 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.02 | 18.61 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Cayman | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 14 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $369 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1536 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 880 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,640 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.48 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.703 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 96 | no data |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | no data |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
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.
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.
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 | 18−20
−11.1%
| 20
+11.1%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−11.1%
| 10
+11.1%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−16.7%
| 14
+16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 20.50 | no data |
| 1440p | 41.00 | no data |
| 4K | 30.75 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−35.3%
|
23
+35.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
11
−27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16
−6.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
26
−15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9
−55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+10%
|
20
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14
−21.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12
−41.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+30.4%
|
23
−30.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−2.7%
|
110−120
+2.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+38.5%
|
39
−38.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+15.8%
|
19
−15.8%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+92.3%
|
13
−92.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12
−8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−22.2%
|
22
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+30.4%
|
23
−30.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9
−55.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+50%
|
36
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9
−88.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+63.6%
|
11
−63.6%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−2.4%
|
40−45
+2.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−3.8%
|
55−60
+3.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
−3.8%
|
80−85
+3.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+10%
|
10
−10%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16
−56.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how HD 6970 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 11% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 11% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 17% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6970 is 180% faster.
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 35% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6970 is ahead in 26 tests (39%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 25 tests (37%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.38 | 7.60 |
| Recency | 14 December 2010 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 1864.3% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 6970 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6970 is a desktop card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
