UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Radeon R4 (Beema)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Beema) and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs outperforms R4 (Beema) by a whopping 342% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1096 | 652 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.33 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Beema | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (10 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 | 128 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 28 Watt |
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 bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
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 (FL 12_0) | 12_1 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 8
−113%
| 17
+113%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−100%
|
10
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−177%
|
36
+177%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−143%
|
17
+143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−54.5%
|
16−18
+54.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12
−8.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−129%
|
16
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8
−37.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 3−4 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how R4 (Beema) and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 113% faster in 1080p
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 R4 (Beema) is 38% faster.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R4 (Beema) is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is ahead in 41 test (69%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.03 | 4.55 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has a 341.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Beema) in performance tests.
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.
