Quadro FX 4800 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Quadro FX 4800, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms FX 4800 by a whopping 330% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 421 | 828 |
| Place by popularity | 21 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 602 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.53 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 0.4623 gflops |
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 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | DDR4 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 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 | - | 1.3 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+383%
|
12−14
−383%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+383%
|
12−14
−383%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+380%
|
10−11
−380%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.92 | 2.54 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 11 November 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 55 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 329.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 450% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
