Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Radeon R9 285

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
17.32
+129%

R9 285 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs by a whopping 129% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking313526
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.73no data
Power efficiency6.3618.85
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameTongaTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 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 cores179280
Core clock speed918 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate102.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 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 amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1375 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth176.0 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 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.1no data
Vulkan1.2.170-

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 285 17.32
+129%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.57

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 285 8570
+114%
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 HD40−45
+111%
19
−111%
1440p21−24
+110%
10
−110%
4K30−35
+114%
14
−114%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.23no data
1440p11.86no data
4K8.30no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+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 285 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • R9 285 is 111% faster in 1080p
  • R9 285 is 110% faster in 1440p
  • R9 285 is 114% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.32 7.57
Recency 2 September 2014 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 28 Watt

R9 285 has a 128.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 578.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 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.

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 285
Radeon R9 285
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

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.


4.2 76 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 905 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 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.