Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Radeon R9 280

Place in the ranking	365	528
Place by popularity	not in top-100	65
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.41	no data
Power efficiency	4.94	18.55
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	Tahiti	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	4 March 2014 (10 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$279	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	1792	80
Core clock speed	no data	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	933 MHz	1350 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	104.5	no data
Floating-point processing power	3.344 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	no data
TMUs	112	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	no data
Memory bus width	384 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	240 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	no data
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12_1
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no 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 280 14.43
+90.4%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.58

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 280 8020
+100%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 4010

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	35−40 +84.2%	19 −84.2%
1440p	18−20 +80%	10 −80%
4K	30−35 +76.5%	17 −76.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.97	no data
1440p	15.50	no data
4K	9.30	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +0%	19 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +0%	13 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	16 +0%	16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	38 +0%	38 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	62 +0%	62 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16 +0%	16 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +0%	10 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	15 +0%	15 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24 +0%	24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	49 +0%	49 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8 +0%	8 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	12 +0%	12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +0%	16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20 +0%	20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22

+0%

20−22

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +0%	10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

This is how R9 280 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

R9 280 is 84% faster in 1080p
R9 280 is 80% faster in 1440p
R9 280 is 76% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.43	7.58
Recency	4 March 2014	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	28 Watt

R9 280 has a 90.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 614.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.

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