Quadro NVS 140M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

Place in the ranking	481	1398
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	22.74	1.37
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	G86
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	9 May 2007 (17 years ago)

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	16
Core clock speed	400 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1350 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	3.200
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	8

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).

Interface

no data

PCIe 2.0 x16

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	9.6 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	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	no data	4.0
OpenGL	no data	3.3
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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	27 +350%	6 −350%
1440p	16	-0−1
4K	11	-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +900%	2−3 −900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +660%	5−6 −660%
Forza Horizon 5	22	0−1
Metro Exodus	29	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +325%	4−5 −325%
Valorant	26	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	12 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Dota 2	28	0−1
Far Cry 5	31 +343%	7−8 −343%
Fortnite	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +500%	5−6 −500%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	17	0−1
Metro Exodus	19	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +1100%	6−7 −1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +600%	4−5 −600%
Valorant	35−40	0−1
World of Tanks	96 +773%	10−12 −773%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Dota 2	47 +4600%	1−2 −4600%
Far Cry 5	34 +386%	7−8 −386%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +380%	5−6 −380%
Forza Horizon 5	22	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +1100%	6−7 −1100%
Valorant	23	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	0−1
World of Tanks	65−70 +6500%	1−2 −6500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	19	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	14−16	0−1
Metro Exodus	16−18	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Valorant	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	8 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	8 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	20 +33.3%	14−16 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	10−12	0−1
Fortnite	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	11	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	6−7	0−1
Valorant	9−10	0−1

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and NVS 140M compete in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 350% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 5200% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the NVS 140M is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 25 tests (81%)
NVS 140M is ahead in 3 tests (10%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.83	0.19
Recency	15 August 2020	9 May 2007
Chip lithography	10 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	10 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 4547.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 140M, on the other hand, has 180% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 140M in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 140M 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.