Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Radeon Pro 5600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 5600M with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5600M outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by a whopping 119% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 232 | 425 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 35 |
| Power efficiency | 33.36 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 12 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 June 2020 (4 years ago) | 15 August 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 cores | 2560 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 164.8 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.274 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 160 | 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 4.0 x16 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | HBM2 | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 770 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 394.2 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 (12_1) | DirectX 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+129%
|
30−35
−129%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+123%
|
21−24
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+120%
|
24−27
−120%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+98.6%
|
70−75
−98.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 110−120
+91.4%
|
55−60
−91.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 80−85
+131%
|
35−40
−131%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+129%
|
30−35
−129%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+123%
|
21−24
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+120%
|
24−27
−120%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+98.6%
|
70−75
−98.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 110−120
+91.4%
|
55−60
−91.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 80−85
+131%
|
35−40
−131%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+85.7%
|
27−30
−85.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+108%
|
24−27
−108%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+120%
|
24−27
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+98.6%
|
70−75
−98.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 45−50
+129%
|
21−24
−129%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 110−120
+122%
|
50−55
−122%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 80−85
+131%
|
35−40
−131%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+85.7%
|
27−30
−85.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 100−110
+124%
|
45−50
−124%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+133%
|
27−30
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+125%
|
16−18
−125%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+178%
|
45−50
−178%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 130−140
+127%
|
60−65
−127%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+156%
|
45−50
−156%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+200%
|
9−10
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5600M is 225% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5600M is ahead in 33 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (30%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.93 | 10.93 |
| Recency | 15 June 2020 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 10 nm |
Pro 5600M has a 118.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months.
The Radeon Pro 5600M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 5600M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
