Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Radeon R9 285

Place in the ranking	323	537
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	8.45	no data
Power efficiency	6.28	18.57
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	Tonga	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	2 September 2014 (10 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	918 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1350 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	102.8	no data
Floating-point processing power	3.29 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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Length	221 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-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	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1375 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	176.0 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 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2	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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12_1
Shader Model	6.5	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	2.1	no data
Vulkan	1.2.170	-

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 16.67
+130%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.26

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 HD	40−45 +111%	19 −111%
1440p	21−24 +110%	10 −110%
4K	30−35 +100%	15 −100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.23	no data
1440p	11.86	no data
4K	8.30	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	11 +0%	11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +0%	14 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +0%	9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +0%	30 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10 +0%	10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +0%	5 +0%
Dota 2	22 +0%	22 +0%
Far Cry 5	26 +0%	26 +0%
Fortnite	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	13 +0%	13 +0%
Metro Exodus	17 +0%	17 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6 +0%	6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	14 +0%	14 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	5 +0%	5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 +0%	4 +0%
Dota 2	36 +0%	36 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +0%	20 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	9 +0%	9 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	6 +0%	6 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	6 +0%	6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +0%	16 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +0%	10 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Fortnite	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	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 100% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.67	7.26
Recency	2 September 2014	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	28 Watt

R9 285 has a 129.6% 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.