Iris Plus Graphics 950 vs Radeon RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 and Iris Plus Graphics 950, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Iris Plus Graphics 950 outperforms RX Vega 11 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 624 | 589 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.72 | 29.89 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Generation 11.0 (2019−2021) |
| GPU code name | Raven | Ice Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (6 years ago) | 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 | 704 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1251 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.04 | 32.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.761 TFLOPS | 1.024 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 44 | 32 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
| Width | IGP | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
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 | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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.
- Passmark
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 28
−7.1%
| 30−35
+7.1%
|
| 1440p | 6
−16.7%
| 7−8
+16.7%
|
| 4K | 12
−16.7%
| 14−16
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Fortnite | 86
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
−18.4%
|
45−50
+18.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−12.9%
|
70−75
+12.9%
|
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−14.9%
|
100−105
+14.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 31
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−12.9%
|
70−75
+12.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 25
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−12.9%
|
70−75
+12.9%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−14%
|
65−70
+14%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and Iris Plus Graphics 950 compete in popular games:
- Iris Plus Graphics 950 is 7% faster in 1080p
- Iris Plus Graphics 950 is 17% faster in 1440p
- Iris Plus Graphics 950 is 17% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.72 | 5.64 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
Iris Plus Graphics 950 has a 19.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The Iris Plus Graphics 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 11 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
