Quadro 3000M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	467	821
Place by popularity	87	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.24
Power efficiency	23.19	2.36
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	GF104
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	96	240
Core clock speed	400 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	18.00
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	40

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	no data	MXM-B (3.0)

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	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	no data	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	80 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

Connectivity and outputs

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 data

No outputs

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 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.47
+267%

Quadro 3000M 2.58

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6504
+323%

Quadro 3000M 1539

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.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 25978
+227%

Quadro 3000M 7941

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	26 −96.2%	51 +96.2%
1440p	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
4K	11 +450%	2−3 −450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	7.82
1440p	no data	99.74
4K	no data	199.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

20
+300%

5−6

−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +175%	8−9 −175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21	0−1
Battlefield 5	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	36 +500%	6−7 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	16 +220%	5−6 −220%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +385%	12−14 −385%
Hitman 3	24 +243%	7−8 −243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	124 +520%	20−22 −520%
Metro Exodus	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +182%	10−12 −182%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90 +137%	35−40 −137%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +188%	8−9 −188%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18	0−1
Battlefield 5	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 +433%	6−7 −433%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +271%	7−8 −271%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +385%	12−14 −385%
Hitman 3	23 +229%	7−8 −229%
Horizon Zero Dawn	112 +460%	20−22 −460%
Metro Exodus	28 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26 +333%	6−7 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30 +173%	10−12 −173%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	84 +121%	35−40 −121%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	23 +283%	6−7 −283%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +340%	5−6 −340%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +385%	12−14 −385%
Hitman 3	20 +186%	7−8 −186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	23 +15%	20−22 −15%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24 +118%	10−12 −118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +60.5%	35−40 −60.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14
+133%

6−7

−133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +310%	10−11 −310%
Hitman 3	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +280%	5−6 −280%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +300%	14−16 −300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+167%

6−7

−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +300%	3−4 −300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+125%

4−5

−125%

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is 96% faster in 1080p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 275% faster in 1440p
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 450% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1650% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs surpassed Quadro 3000M in all 57 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.47	2.58
Recency	15 August 2020	22 February 2011
Chip lithography	10 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	75 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 267.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 167.9% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.

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