Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM and Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics represent two fundamentally different approaches to discrete graphics. The RTX 3050 OEM is a full-sized, dual-slot Ampere-based add-in board, while the Iris Xe MAX is a compact 25 W integrated-class part based on Intel’s DG1 chip. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result, with the NVIDIA card dominating in raw compute, but the Intel part occupies a distinct niche in low-power systems. The analysis below compares their architectural foundations, benchmark outcomes, and practical positioning based solely on the provided data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a clear split in capabilities. In the only directly comparable test—Geekbench OpenCL—the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315. That is a 324.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, which places it in a different performance class entirely. The RTX 3050 OEM’s average benchmark score of 15,199 across all tests further underscores its broader applicability, sitting near rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (15,171, 0.2% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (15,290, -0.6% delta).

Conversely, the Intel Iris Xe MAX’s only benchmark score is that same OpenCL result, giving it an average of 14,315. Its nearest rivals are integrated and older discrete parts: the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352, -0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti (14,277, 0.3% delta). This places the Iris Xe MAX in the lower mid-range of graphics performance, roughly on par with a 2016-era flagship in compute but with far less memory bandwidth and a much smaller physical footprint.

The use case split is stark. The RTX 3050 OEM wins every category that requires sustained throughput: it has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 4 GB of LPDDR4X, a 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 68.26 GB/s, and 2,304 shading units versus 768. The Iris Xe MAX wins in power efficiency and physical integration—its 25 W TDP and IGP slot width allow it to fit into systems where a 130 W dual-slot card cannot operate. The data suggests the Intel part targets thin-and-light laptops or compact desktops, while the NVIDIA card targets mainstream gaming and content creation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The RTX 3050 OEM uses NVIDIA’s GA106 chip built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, containing 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The Iris Xe MAX uses Intel’s DG1 chip on a 10 nm process, with a 95 mm² die size. Transistor counts for the Intel part are not listed, but the die area difference is substantial—the NVIDIA chip is nearly three times larger.

Memory architectures diverge significantly. The RTX 3050 OEM pairs 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Xe MAX has 4 GB of LPDDR4X on the same 128-bit bus, but only reaches 68.26 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ: the NVIDIA card runs at 1515 MHz base and 1755 MHz boost, while the Intel part starts at 300 MHz base and boosts to 1650 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RTX 3050 OEM versus 2133 MHz (4.3 Gbps effective) for the Iris Xe MAX.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2,304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 18 ray-tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS. The Iris Xe MAX has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with no ray-tracing or tensor core counts listed. Consequently, the RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the resource gap. The RTX 3050 OEM delivers 56.16 GPixel/s and 126.4 GTexel/s. The Iris Xe MAX manages 39.60 GPixel/s and 79.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 8.087 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 2.534 TFLOPS for Intel. Notably, the Intel part has a 2:1 FP16 ratio (5.069 TFLOPS), while the NVIDIA part runs FP16 at 1:1 (8.087 TFLOPS). Power delivery differs: the RTX 3050 OEM requires a 1x 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Iris Xe MAX has no connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740, and the Iris Xe MAX scores 14,315, yielding a 324.3% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is not a marginal win; it is a four-fold difference in raw compute throughput. To contextualize, the RTX 3050 OEM’s OpenCL score alone is over four times the Intel part’s entire average benchmark score.

While no other direct comparisons are available, the broader benchmark suites for the RTX 3050 OEM illustrate its strengths beyond OpenCL. Its Passmark G3D score is 11,857, with a GPU compute score of 5,779. It also shows strong legacy DirectX performance: Passmark DirectX 9 at 137, DirectX 11 at 86, and DirectX 10 at 61. The DirectX 12 score is 58, and the G2D score is 973. These numbers indicate balanced performance across API generations, which is typical for a modern architecture with broad driver support.

The Iris Xe MAX has no such breadth in the data. Its only score is the OpenCL result, which places its percentile at 56 versus the RTX 3050 OEM’s 57. The percentiles are surprisingly close—just one point apart—despite the massive compute gap. This reflects that percentile is relative to all GPUs, and the Intel part still outperforms a large portion of the market. The RTX 3050 OEM’s average benchmark score of 15,199 is 6.2% higher than the Iris Xe MAX’s 14,315, but the OpenCL delta dwarfs that average difference, highlighting how the NVIDIA card excels in compute-heavy workloads while the Intel part may be more competitive in other, untested scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM delivers 8.087 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics delivers 2.534 TFLOPS FP32. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 versus 14,315, a 324.3% advantage.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Iris Xe MAX has 4 GB of LPDDR4X on a 128-bit bus with 68.26 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card offers over three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Are there any features the Intel GPU has that NVIDIA lacks?

A: The Iris Xe MAX has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 5.069 TFLOPS FP16 versus its 2.534 TFLOPS FP32. The RTX 3050 OEM runs FP16 at 1:1, so its FP16 is equal to its FP32 at 8.087 TFLOPS. The Intel part also has a much lower 25 W TDP.

Q: What are the physical size and power requirements?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM is a dual-slot card, 242 mm long and 112 mm high, with a 130 W TDP and a 1x 8-pin power connector. The Iris Xe MAX is an IGP with no outputs, a 25 W TDP, and no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 300 W for NVIDIA and 200 W for Intel.

Q: Which GPU supports better DirectX features?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Iris Xe MAX supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The NVIDIA card also includes 18 ray-tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, which the Intel part lacks.

Q: How do their market positions compare based on benchmark percentiles?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM sits at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 15,199. The Iris Xe MAX sits at the 56th percentile, with an average score of 14,315. Despite the large compute gap, both rank in the lower-middle of the overall GPU market.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the superior performer in every measured category. Its 324.3% OpenCL lead over the Iris Xe MAX is decisive, and its architectural advantages—more shading units, higher memory bandwidth, ray tracing support, and larger VRAM—make it the only choice for gaming or compute workloads. The RTX 3050 OEM’s average benchmark score of 15,199 places it within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 and 0.5% of the AMD Radeon 680M, confirming it competes with mid-range parts from its era.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the benchmark data. Its 25 W TDP and IGP form factor enable integration into systems where a 130 W dual-slot card is physically impossible. Its performance, however, is closer to integrated graphics like the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (14,352, -0.3% delta) than to any discrete gaming card. The RTX 3050 OEM’s 12,000 million transistors and 276 mm² die size dwarf the Intel part’s 95 mm² die, reflecting a fundamental difference in ambition.

For users building or upgrading a desktop with room for a dual-slot card and a 300 W PSU, the RTX 3050 OEM is the obvious pick. It offers 8 GB VRAM, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. For users constrained to low-power, compact systems, the Iris Xe MAX provides a baseline of 2.534 TFLOPS FP32 performance with no external power requirement. The choice is not between equals; it is between a full-fledged discrete GPU and a low-power integrated solution. The benchmark data says the RTX 3050 OEM wins the performance contest outright.