Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Radeon R9 270X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

R9 270X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 180 Watt
12.62
+33.5%

R9 270X outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking389460
Place by popularitynot in top-10083
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.64no data
Power efficiency5.0624.35
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameCuracaoTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 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 cores128096
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate84.00no data
Floating-point processing power2.688 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs80no 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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-

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.

R9 270X 12.62
+33.5%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.45

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.

R9 270X 6560
+27.6%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5143

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 HD30−35
+15.4%
26
−15.4%
1440p21−24
+31.3%
16
−31.3%
4K14−16
+27.3%
11
−27.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+0%
20
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+31.8%
22
−31.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
−5%
21
+5%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+37.9%
27−30
−37.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−44%
36
+44%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+25%
16
−25%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
−87.9%
124
+87.9%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+20%
35
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+106%
17
−106%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+32.3%
30−35
−32.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−26.8%
90
+26.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+26.1%
21−24
−26.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+11.1%
18
−11.1%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+37.9%
27−30
−37.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
−28%
32
+28%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+53.8%
13
−53.8%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
+4.3%
23
−4.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
−69.7%
112
+69.7%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+50%
28
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+34.6%
26
−34.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+36.7%
30
−36.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+19.2%
24−27
−19.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−18.3%
84
+18.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+107%
14
−107%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+8.7%
23
−8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22
+81.8%
11
−81.8%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+31.8%
21−24
−31.8%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
+20%
20
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+187%
23
−187%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+70.8%
24
−70.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+121%
14
−121%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+16.4%
60−65
−16.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+150%
14
−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−16.7%
7
+16.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+51.2%
40−45
−51.2%
Hitman 3 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+30%
20−22
−30%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+5.3%
19
−5.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Hitman 3 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+53.8%
35−40
−53.8%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12
+9.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%

This is how R9 270X and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • R9 270X is 15% faster in 1080p
  • R9 270X is 31% faster in 1440p
  • R9 270X is 27% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 270X is 187% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 270X is ahead in 60 tests (83%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 9 tests (13%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.62 9.45
Recency 8 October 2013 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 180 Watt 28 Watt

R9 270X has a 33.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 542.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 270X
Radeon R9 270X
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 737 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 952 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.