GeForce GT 415M vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GT 415M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.03
+1255%

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 1255% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4501155
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data4.30
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeGF108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)3 September 2010 (14 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 cores9648
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Number of transistorsno data585 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data12 Watt
Texture fill rateno data4.000
Floating-point processing powerno data0.096 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeDDR4DDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX 12_112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+391%
10−12
−391%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+391%
10−12
−391%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1550%
4−5
−1550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11 0−1
Battlefield 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 2700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 15 tests (43%)
  • there's a draw in 20 tests (57%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.03 0.74
Recency 15 August 2020 3 September 2010
Chip lithography 10 nm 40 nm

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has a 1255.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.


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.


Intel Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
GeForce GT 415M

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.


3.9 15 votes

Rate Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 415M 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.