Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 with Iris Xe Graphics MAX, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega M GL / 870 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics MAX by a whopping 170% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 383 | 633 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.64 | 14.12 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega Kaby Lake-G | DG1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (7 years ago) | 31 October 2020 (4 years ago) |
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 | 1280 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 79.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 24 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | HBM2 | LPDDR4X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 4.3 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 68.26 GB/s |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
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 | 44
+175%
| 16−18
−175%
|
| 1440p | 28
+180%
| 10−12
−180%
|
| 4K | 15
+200%
| 5−6
−200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 48
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| Valorant | 47
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+189%
|
27−30
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 129
+187%
|
45−50
−187%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+182%
|
65−70
−182%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+189%
|
35−40
−189%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+206%
|
18−20
−206%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
+177%
|
35−40
−177%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 32
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and Iris Xe Graphics MAX compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 175% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 180% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 200% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.26 | 4.92 |
| Recency | 7 January 2018 | 31 October 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
RX Vega M GL / 870 has a 169.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Xe Graphics MAX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics MAX in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook card while Iris Xe Graphics MAX is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
