Iris xe graphics vs gtx 1650 laptop

Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop) videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

Buy on Amazon

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX

Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
Around 6% higher boost clock speed: 1650 MHz vs 1560 MHz
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 10 nm vs 12 nm

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)

4.7x more core clock speed: 1395 MHz vs 300 MHz
Around 17% higher pipelines: 896 vs 768
3.8x more memory clock speed: 8000 MHz vs 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective)

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (Laptop)

Compare specifications (specs)

Integrated graphics in laptops have long been the butt of jokes among PC gamers, as that technology so worthless that it comes free with your laptop. But times and technologies are changing, and believe it or not, the latest integrated solutions are finally due some respect.

Integrated graphics that didn’t stink actually started with Ryzen 3000, and continued with Intel’s

{{#url}}10th-gen Ice Lake{{/url}}{{^url}}10th-gen Ice Lake{{/url}}

and again with Ryzen 4000. Intel, however, took it up another notch when it introduced its with Iris Xe graphics.

And yes, it can run Crysis. Not the remastered version, but the one from 2007. Here’s the proof [see blue bars below]:

IDG

Intel’s Core i7-1185G7 as well as Ryzen 7 4800U can indeed run Crysis [the 2007 one].

Performance of a game from 2007, even if it created its own Internet meme, isn’t something people care too much about. So yes, it can run Rise of the Tomb Raider too, which dates to 2015. Set to Very High at 1080p resolution, the Iris Xe and Radeon do reasonably well. With lower settings and a lower resolution, they’re even better.

IDG

Set to a lower resolution and with a few tweaks, it’s entirely possible to play games such as Rise of the Tomb Raider on integrated graphics at enjoyable frame rates.

We can go on with comparing integrated graphics against integrated graphics, but we know you want to see how Iris Xe and Radeon compare to GeForce cards. To do that, we reached for results from various laptops we’ve reviewed to compare Tiger Lake and Ryzen. While the CPUs on those discrete graphics laptops make a difference in the graphics score, sticking with 3DMark’s synthetic Sky Diver gives a result that’s about 90 percent graphics-bound.

One weakness of Sky Diver is it runs separate tests focused on the GPU and then on the CPU. Although that gives you a better way to judge GPU or CPU performance, it doesn’t give you that much insight on what might happen during a concurrent load when both are used heavily, such as in many games. That doesn’t make what it tells you wrong, it’s just you need to understand the results.

For GPUs we went through and pulled scores from Nvidia’s low-end GeForce MX150, MX250, and MX330, and even threw in two GeForce GTX 1650 GPUs. One is Max-Q, while the other is is a full-power version.To really round it out, we also rope in scores from various HD laptops, older Ryzen APUs, and a Kaby Lake G score too.

{{#url}}Kaby Lake G{{/url}}{{^url}}Kaby Lake G{{/url}}

, if you don’t recall, is a combined Intel CPU with a combined custom Radeon graphics chip in a tiny package. IDG

Both 11th-gen Tiger Lake and Ryzen 7 4800U’s integrated graphics now easily exceed GeForce MX GPUs in synthetic tests.

To make the results a little easier to read, we’ve highlighted them by brand color: green for Nvidia, red for AMD, and blue for Intel. The chart is ranked from fastest to slowest. No surprise, at the bottom are Intel’s basic UHD graphics CPUs.

The first red bar from the bottom is AMD’s older Ryzen 3000 chip that, although a bit disappointing compared to Ryzen 4000, was a decent performer in graphics and competitive with Nvidia’s GeForce MX150.

As we move up the chart, we see Intel’s 10th-gen Iris Plus graphics suddenly becomes a player. It edges out Ryzen 7 3580U as well as GeForce MX150, and it’s competitive with GeForce MX250 and GeForce MX330. We expect Nvidia’s new GeForce MX450, which isn’t quite out yet, to reset expectations.

Where integrated graphics gets really interesting is with 11th-gen Tiger Lake and Iris Xe, as well as Ryzen 7 4800U with its Radeon graphics. The Ryzen 7 4800U steps away from the GeForce MX330, as does Iris Xe. Iris Xe scores, we need to point out, are based on a pre-production reference laptop. How fast Iris Xe is in a production laptop will greatly depend on the design of the laptop, so you can expect to be somewhere between the lowest score for Iris Xe and the highest score.

Iris Xe on its higher power setting gets uncomfortably close to a GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q GPU, with a score about 13 percent slower. Core i7-1185G7 is also awfully close to the GPU. Leading the list and in no remote danger is a GeForce GTX 1650. We’ll point out the GeForce GTX 1650 is a 50-watt GPU and in a larger and heavier XPS 15 7590 laptop.

Integrated graphics have basically come a long way. You can see that illustrated below were we grabbed Sky Diver results from 4th-generation Haswell CPUs with HD4400 graphics all the way to today’s 11th gen Iris Xe graphics.

So yes Internet, you’ll have start looking for something else to make fun of.

IDG

Intel integrated graphics barely moved from the 2013 4th-gen Haswell chip for years, but the last few generations have seen a huge uptick.

Comparative analysis of Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 [Laptop] videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Frames], GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen [Fps], GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Frames], GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan [Fps], GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Frames], GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex [Fps], PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

Buy on Amazon

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX

Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year[s] 6 month[s] later
Around 6% higher boost clock speed: 1650 MHz vs 1560 MHz
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 10 nm vs 12 nm

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 [Laptop]

4.7x more core clock speed: 1395 MHz vs 300 MHz
Around 17% higher pipelines: 896 vs 768
3.8x more memory clock speed: 8000 MHz vs 2133 MHz [4.3 Gbps effective]

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel Iris Xe Graphics MAX
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 [Laptop]

Compare specifications [specs]

Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
Core clock speed 1380
Max video memory 4 GB
Memory type GDDR5, GDDR6
Memory clock speed 12000
Maximum resolution

Interface PCIe 4.0 x4
Core clock speed
Max video memory 4 GB
Memory type LPDDR4x
Memory clock speed 4266
Maximum resolution

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in performance rating	214	262
Value for money	33.46	no data
Architecture	Turing [2018−2021]	Gen. 12 Xe [2020]
GPU code name	N18P-G0, N18P-G61	iDG1LPDEV
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	23 April 2019 [3 years ago]	31 October 2020 [1 year ago]
Price now	$301	no data

Value for money

To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1024	96
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	10 nm
Thermal design power [TDP]	50 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	79.20

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5, GDDR6	LPDDR4x
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	4266 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	68.26 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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 outputs

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectX	12 [12_1]	12 [12_1]
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.2
CUDA	7.5	no data

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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 Cloud Gate GPU
3DMark Fire Strike Score
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark Ice Storm 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.

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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

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.

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.

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

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	65	27
1440p	37	20
4K	23	14

Full HDMedium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55	18−20
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42	19
Battlefield 5	60	38
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	63	18−20
Cyberpunk 2077	29	14
Far Cry 5	60	26
Far Cry New Dawn	55	23
Forza Horizon 4	82	18−20
Hitman 3	69	33
Horizon Zero Dawn	53	18−20
Red Dead Redemption 2	48	27
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	58	23
Watch Dogs: Legion	48	18−20

Full HDHigh Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	48	18−20
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24	6
Battlefield 5	60	35
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	49	18−20
Cyberpunk 2077	24	11
Far Cry 5	54	25
Far Cry New Dawn	55	22
Forza Horizon 4	80	18−20
Hitman 3	57	28
Horizon Zero Dawn	39	18−20
Metro Exodus	33	18
Red Dead Redemption 2	27	9
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	48	11
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	62	34
Watch Dogs: Legion	42	18−20

Full HDUltra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30	18−20
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8	18−20
Battlefield 5	59	33
Cyberpunk 2077	19	18−20
Far Cry 5	53	24
Far Cry New Dawn	51	20
Forza Horizon 4	62	18−20
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	36	18
Watch Dogs: Legion	17	18−20

1440pHigh Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38	18−20
Hitman 3	37	18−20
Horizon Zero Dawn	24	18−20
Metro Exodus	20	18−20
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	18−20
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30	18−20
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13	18−20

1440pUltra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22	18−20
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	18−20
Battlefield 5	47	18−20
Cyberpunk 2077	14	18−20
Far Cry 5	35	18−20
Far Cry New Dawn	39	18−20
Forza Horizon 4	24−27	18−20
Watch Dogs: Legion	12	18−20

4KHigh Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7	18−20
Hitman 3	19	18−20
Horizon Zero Dawn	15	18−20
Metro Exodus	12	18−20
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	18−20
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15	18−20
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21	11

4KUltra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12	18−20
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	18−20
Battlefield 5	25	18−20
Cyberpunk 2077	6	18−20
Far Cry 5	18	18−20
Far Cry New Dawn	19	18−20
Forza Horizon 4	24−27	18−20
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27	18−20

Performance rating	23.82	18.20
Novelty	23 April 2019	31 October 2020
Pipelines / CUDA cores	1024	96
Memory bandwidth	192	68.26
Chip lithography	12 nm	10 nm
Thermal design power [TDP]	50 Watt	25 Watt

Judging by the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

since it shows better performance.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

We selected several comparisons of video cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more probable options to consider.

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

Rate Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.