Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

Place in the ranking	173	468
Place by popularity	not in top-100	88
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	44.77	no data
Power efficiency	10.46	23.18
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	Vega 10	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	3584	96
Core clock speed	1138 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1350 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	no data
Floating-point processing power	8.96 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	224	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	no data
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	402.4 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	no data
HDMI	+	-

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)	12_1
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	1.1.125	-

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.

Pro Vega 56 32.05
+238%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.47

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.

Pro Vega 56 25589
+293%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6504

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.

Pro Vega 56 17797
+246%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5139

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	100 +285%	26 −285%
1440p	50−55 +233%	15 −233%
4K	61 +510%	10 −510%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.99	no data
1440p	7.98	no data
4K	6.54	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55
+170%

−170%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +214%	22 −214%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +162%	21 −162%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +259%	27−30 −259%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +80.6%	36 −80.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +238%	16 −238%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +227%	21−24 −227%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +212%	24−27 −212%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +171%	60−65 −171%
Hitman 3	65−70 +179%	24 −179%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +12.9%	124 −12.9%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +206%	35 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +365%	17 −365%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +265%	30−35 −265%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +30%	90 −30%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +200%	21−24 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +206%	18 −206%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +259%	27−30 −259%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +103%	32 −103%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +315%	13 −315%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +227%	21−24 −227%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +212%	24−27 −212%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +171%	60−65 −171%
Hitman 3	65−70 +191%	23 −191%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +25%	112 −25%
Metro Exodus	100−110 +282%	28 −282%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +204%	26 −204%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +277%	30 −277%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65−70 +158%	24−27 −158%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +39.3%	84 −39.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65−70 +393%	14 −393%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +293%	14−16 −293%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +183%	23 −183%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +391%	11 −391%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +227%	21−24 −227%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +171%	60−65 −171%
Hitman 3	65−70 +235%	20 −235%
Horizon Zero Dawn	140−150 +509%	23 −509%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +371%	24 −371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	64 +357%	14 −357%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +91.8%	60−65 −91.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

75−80
+464%

−464%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +239%	18−20 −239%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +250%	14−16 −250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +278%	9−10 −278%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +580%	5−6 −580%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +311%	9−10 −311%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +229%	7 −229%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +236%	10−12 −236%
Forza Horizon 4	180−190 +349%	40−45 −349%
Hitman 3	40−45 +208%	12−14 −208%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +240%	20−22 −240%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +369%	12−14 −369%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +289%	19 −289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +378%	9−10 −378%
Watch Dogs: Legion	160−170 +182%	60−65 −182%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
+238%

16−18

−238%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +256%	9−10 −256%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Hitman 3	24−27 +420%	5−6 −420%
Horizon Zero Dawn	150−160 +305%	35−40 −305%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +457%	7−8 −457%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +250%	12 −250%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +267%	12−14 −267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +282%	11 −282%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30
+211%

9−10

−211%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is 285% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 is 233% faster in 1440p
Pro Vega 56 is 510% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Pro Vega 56 surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.05	9.47
Recency	14 August 2017	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	14 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	28 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 238.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 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.