Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 57,915, while the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics scores 14,315. That is a delta of -75.3% for the Intel part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU is roughly four times faster in this compute workload. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile takes the sole head-to-head win.

Looking at the broader database context, the Intel Iris Xe MAX lands at the 56th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it: the AMD Radeon Vega 11 sits 0.3% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti sits 0.3% lower, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN is 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 is 0.5% ahead. This tells you the Iris Xe MAX is essentially a middle-of-the-pack mobile solution, trading blows with integrated graphics from the same era and even an older desktop flagship. Its raw compute score of 14,315 places it in the same performance tier as those parts, not above or below by any meaningful margin.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, by contrast, holds the 53rd percentile across all GPUs. Its average benchmark score across multiple tests is 12,940, but that figure is dragged down by older DirectX tests. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 580 at 0.1% higher, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER at 0.4% lower, the AMD Radeon 740M at 0.5% higher, and the AMD FirePro W5100 at 0.7% higher. The GeForce OpenCL score of 57,915 is the standout data point, and it shows a massive gap between these two products in compute throughput.

When you normalize across all recorded benchmarks, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile shows a wider spread of results. Its PassMark G3D score is 10,093, its PassMark GPU Compute score is 4,305, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 55,812. The Intel part only has one recorded benchmark, so its average score of 14,315 is also its best and worst result. The data does not include a Vulkan score for the Intel GPU, nor does it include any 3DMark Steel Nomad result for it, so cross-API comparisons are limited to what is in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics is built on the DG1 chip using Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture, which falls under the Xe Graphics generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 95 mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile uses the GA106 chip with the Ampere architecture, built on Samsung's 8 nm process. The die is substantially larger at 276 mm², and the transistor count is listed at 12,000 million, which translates to a density of 43.5M transistors per mm². The Intel chip does not have a transistor count listed in the database.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Intel GPU runs at a 300 MHz base clock and boosts to 1650 MHz. The NVIDIA GPU has a higher base clock of 735 MHz but a lower boost clock of 1035 MHz. Memory clocks also diverge: the Intel part uses 2133 MHz memory with 4.3 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA part runs memory at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed.

Memory configuration is another major split. Both have 4 GB capacity and a 128-bit bus width, but the Intel GPU uses LPDDR4X while the NVIDIA GPU uses GDDR6. This yields a bandwidth of 68.26 GB/s for the Intel part versus 192.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA part. That is nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA GPU. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Iris Xe MAX has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The NVIDIA GPU also includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, while the Intel part has neither listed. Pixel rate is 33.12 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 39.60 GPixel/s for Intel, which is surprising given the smaller chip. Texture rate is 82.80 GTexel/s for NVIDIA and 79.20 GTexel/s for Intel, so those two metrics are close.

Floating point performance shows the biggest gap. The NVIDIA GPU delivers 5.299 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same 5.299 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The Intel GPU delivers 2.534 TFLOPS for FP32 and 5.069 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The API support also differs: NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and interface details round out the differences. The Intel GPU has a TDP of 25 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W, with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The NVIDIA GPU has a TDP of 75 W and no suggested PSU listed, with a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The Intel part has no display outputs, while the NVIDIA part is listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The Intel GPU is a slot-width IGP, as is the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for anyone needing compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 57,915 is 75.3% higher than the Intel Iris Xe MAX's 14,315. The NVIDIA GPU also brings ray tracing cores, tensor cores, double the shading units, and nearly triple the memory bandwidth. If your workload is OpenCL compute, gaming with modern DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, or anything that leverages RT cores or tensor cores, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is the only rational choice from this data.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX is not without merit, but its strengths are narrow. It has a higher pixel rate (39.60 GPixel/s versus 33.12 GPixel/s) and a higher boost clock (1650 MHz versus 1035 MHz), plus a much lower TDP at 25 W versus 75 W. For a fanless or low-power mobile design, the Intel part could be the better fit. Its FP16 throughput of 5.069 TFLOPS is close to the NVIDIA part's 5.299 TFLOPS, so if you are doing FP16 compute and can tolerate the lower FP32 performance, the Intel GPU may suffice.

However, the database records only one benchmark for the Intel GPU, and that benchmark is a decisive loss. The RTX 3050 Ti Mobile also has a higher average benchmark score across all tests (12,940) if you include its full set of results, though that average is skewed by low DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 scores. The Intel part's single score of 14,315 is higher than that average, but that is a function of test selection, not overall capability.

Pick the NVIDIA GPU if you need raw compute, ray tracing, tensor acceleration, or broad API support. Pick the Intel GPU only if you are constrained by power draw or need a higher pixel fill rate, and you do not need the extra memory bandwidth or shading units. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile scores 57,915, which is 75.3% higher than the Intel Iris Xe MAX's 14,315.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 4 GB of memory with a 128-bit bus width. The Intel part uses LPDDR4X, while the NVIDIA part uses GDDR6.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The NVIDIA GPU has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel GPU has 68.26 GB/s. That is roughly 2.8 times higher for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the Intel GPU support ray tracing?

A: The database lists no ray tracing cores for the Intel Iris Xe MAX. The NVIDIA RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has 20 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The Intel Iris Xe MAX has a TDP of 25 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has a TDP of 75 W.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Intel GPU was released on 2020-10-30, and the NVIDIA GPU was released on 2021-05-10.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile wins decisively in compute performance. Its OpenCL score (57,915) dwarfs the Intel part, and it also holds advantages in shading units (2,560 versus 768), texture units (80 versus 48), ROPs (32 versus 24), FP32 throughput (5.299 TFLOPS versus 2.534 TFLOPS), and memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s versus 68.26 GB/s). It also has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, which the Intel GPU lacks. For any modern gaming workload, DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, or compute tasks that use FP32, the NVIDIA part wins outright.

The Intel Iris Xe MAX wins in a few specific areas. Its pixel rate of 39.60 GPixel/s is higher than the NVIDIA part's 33.12 GPixel/s, which could matter for certain rasterization tasks. Its boost clock of 1650 MHz is higher than the NVIDIA's 1035 MHz, and its FP16 throughput of 5.069 TFLOPS is close to the NVIDIA's 5.299 TFLOPS. The power draw is also much lower at 25 W versus 75 W, making it a better fit for power-constrained systems. The Intel part also has a smaller die (95 mm² versus 276 mm²) and uses a 10 nm process versus 8 nm, which may be relevant for manufacturing costs or thermal density.

In the broader database context, the Intel GPU performs similarly to integrated graphics like the AMD Radeon Vega 11 (0.3% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (0.5% lower), while the NVIDIA GPU trades blows with desktop parts like the AMD Radeon RX 580 (0.1% lower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER (0.4% higher). The Intel part is closer to older integrated solutions, while the NVIDIA part sits in the range of capable desktop discrete GPUs from a few generations back.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Manufacturer: Intel versus NVIDIA
• Chip: DG1 versus GA106
• Architecture: Generation 12.1 versus Ampere
• Generation: Xe Graphics versus GeForce 30 Mobile
• Process Node: 10 nm versus 8 nm
• Foundry: Intel versus Samsung
• Die Size: 95 mm² versus 276 mm²
• Transistors: not listed versus 12,000 million
• Transistor Density: not listed versus 43.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 300 MHz versus 735 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1650 MHz versus 1035 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2133 MHz, 4.3 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective
• Memory Type: LPDDR4X versus GDDR6
• Memory Bandwidth: 68.26 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 versus 2560
• TMUs: 48 versus 80
• ROPs: 24 versus 32
• RT Cores: not listed versus 20
• Tensor Cores: not listed versus 80
• Pixel Rate: 39.60 GPixel/s versus 33.12 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 79.20 GTexel/s versus 82.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.534 TFLOPS versus 5.299 TFLOPS
• FP16: 5.069 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 5.299 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 25 W versus 75 W
• Suggested PSU: 200 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Release Date: 2020-10-30 versus 2021-05-10
• Predecessor: Graphics versus GeForce 20 Mobile
• Successor: Alchemist versus not listed
• Benchmark Scores: Geekbench OpenCL 14,315 versus multiple scores including Geekbench OpenCL 57,915, Geekbench Vulkan 55,812, PassMark G3D 10,093, and PassMark GPU Compute 4,305
• Average Benchmark Score: 14,315 versus 12,940
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 56 versus 53

Both share the same memory size (4 GB), bus width (128 bit), slot width (IGP), OpenGL version (4.6), Vulkan version (1.4), and production status (end-of-life). Neither has a listed launch MSRP in the database.