UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) vs Radeon HD 7770M

Place in the ranking	728	753
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	7.36	8.60
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	Chelsea	Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	24 April 2012 (12 years ago)	28 May 2019 (5 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	512	32
Core clock speed	675 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1100 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	32 Watt	12-25 Watt
Texture fill rate	21.60	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.6912 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	32	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	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	DDR4
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	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

No outputs

no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12_1
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-

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.

HD 7770M 3.44
+9.6%

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 3.14

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 7770M 2110

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 2127
+0.8%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 7770M 10468
+19.6%

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 8750

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	14−16 +7.7%	13 −7.7%
4K	9−10 +0%	9 +0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +25%	8 −25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −25%	10 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +25%	16−18 −25%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +8.7%	21−24 −8.7%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −100%	12 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +50%	6 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +25%	16−18 −25%
Hitman 3	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +8.7%	21−24 −8.7%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +27.3%	11 −27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +25%	16−18 −25%
Hitman 3	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +8.7%	21−24 −8.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +7.7%	13 −7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +200%	5 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+28.6%

7−8

−28.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+16.7%

6−7

−16.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how HD 7770M and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) compete in popular games:

HD 7770M is 8% faster in 1080p
A tie in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7770M is 200% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7770M is ahead in 44 tests (71%)
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
there's a draw in 16 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.44	3.14
Recency	24 April 2012	28 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	32 Watt	12 Watt

HD 7770M has a 9.6% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 7770M and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU).

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.