Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs ATI Radeon X1650

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1650 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

ATI X1650
2007
256 MB DDR2
0.18

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms ATI X1650 by a whopping 4106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1396527
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Power efficiencyno data18.81
ArchitectureR500 (2005−2007)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameRV516Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 November 2007 (17 years ago)15 August 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 coresno data80
Core clock speed635 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors107 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology80 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data28 Watt
Texture fill rate2.540no data
ROPs4no data
TMUs4no 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 1.0 x16no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR2no data
Maximum RAM amount256 MBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed392 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth6.272 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Videono data

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.

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12_1
Shader Model3.0no data
OpenGL2.0no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

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-0−119
1440p-0−110
4K-0−117

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%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.18 7.57
Recency 20 November 2007 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 80 nm 10 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 4105.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon X1650 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.


ATI Radeon X1650
Radeon X1650
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.


3.4 65 votes

Rate Radeon X1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 907 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.