Radeon RX Vega 9 vs UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) and Radeon RX Vega 9, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 9 outperforms UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 757 | 611 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.67 | 25.65 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11 | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (7 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 | 32 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-25 Watt | 15 Watt |
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 | DDR4 | no data |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12_1 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 13
−61.5%
| 21
+61.5%
|
| 4K | 9
−55.6%
| 14−16
+55.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
−91.7%
|
21−24
+91.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−58.3%
|
18−20
+58.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
−109%
|
21−24
+109%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−171%
|
18−20
+171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 32
−18.8%
|
38
+18.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−54.5%
|
16−18
+54.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
−200%
|
90−95
+200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−117%
|
24−27
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 13
−76.9%
|
21−24
+76.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−62.1%
|
45−50
+62.1%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
−81.8%
|
40−45
+81.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) and RX Vega 9 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 9 is 62% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 9 is 56% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 5% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 9 is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RX Vega 9 is ahead in 60 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.15 | 5.59 |
| Recency | 28 May 2019 | 26 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) has an age advantage of 1 year, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
RX Vega 9, on the other hand, has a 77.5% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon RX Vega 9 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
