Iris Xe Graphics MAX vs Radeon R9 M385X
Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 M385X
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Iris Xe Graphics MAX
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M385X
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX uses modern memory architecture. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 M385X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 M385X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (512 MB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Iris Xe Graphics MAX.
| Insight | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) |
| Longevity | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) (10nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $40 versus $300 for the Radeon R9 M385X, it costs 87% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 641.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+641.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Iris Xe Graphics MAX and Radeon R9 M385X
Iris Xe Graphics MAX
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is manufactured by Intel. It was released in October 31 2020. It features the Generation 12.1 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1650 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 10 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,972 points.
Radeon R9 M385X
The Radeon R9 M385X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1100 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,994 points.
Graphics Performance
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX scores 1,972 and the Radeon R9 M385X reaches 1,994 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is built on Generation 12.1 while the Radeon R9 M385X uses GCN 2.0, both on 10 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 768 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs 896 (Radeon R9 M385X). Raw compute: 2.534 TFLOPS (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs 1.971 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M385X). Boost clocks: 1650 MHz vs 1100 MHz.
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,972 | 1,994+1% |
| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.534 TFLOPS+29% | 1.971 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz+50% | 1100 MHz |
| ROPs | 24+50% | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 M385X has 512 MB. The Radeon R9 M385X offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared System RAM | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | Unknown |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon R9 M385X). Vulkan: 1.0 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 (12_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.2+20% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: QuickSync (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 M385X). Decoder: QuickSync vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,AV1 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Radeon R9 M385X).
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | QuickSync | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | QuickSync | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,AV1 | H.264,MPEG-4,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX draws 25W versus the Radeon R9 M385X's 75W — a 100% difference. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M385X). Power connectors: Integrated vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 85.
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-67% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 1W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | Mobile |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 78.9+197% | 26.6 |
Value Analysis
The Iris Xe Graphics MAX launched at $55 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the Radeon R9 M385X launched at $300 and now averages $300. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX costs 86.7% less ($260 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 49.3 (Iris Xe Graphics MAX) vs 6.6 (Radeon R9 M385X) — the Iris Xe Graphics MAX offers 647% better value. The Iris Xe Graphics MAX is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Iris Xe Graphics MAX | Radeon R9 M385X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $55-82% | $300 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-87% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 49.3+647% | 6.6 |
| Codename | DG1 | Strato |
| Release | October 31 2020 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #685 | #681 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Iris Xe Graphics MAX and Radeon R9 M385X
