Quadro NVS 510M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Quadro NVS 510M, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7
2020
10.27
+1556%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms NVS 510M by a whopping 1556% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking4471209
Place by popularity17not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.22
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeG71
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)21 August 2006 (18 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 cores96no data
Core clock speedno data450 MHz
Number of transistorsno data278 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data10.80
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 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 typeDDR4GDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data256 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data600 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data19.2 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 Connectorsno dataNo 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 and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX 12_19.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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

Battlefield 5 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Fortnite 55−60
+1833%
3−4
−1833%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Valorant 90−95
+1740%
5−6
−1740%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+1725%
8−9
−1725%
Dota 2 65−70
+1625%
4−5
−1625%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Fortnite 55−60
+1833%
3−4
−1833%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Valorant 90−95
+1740%
5−6
−1740%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
Dota 2 65−70
+1625%
4−5
−1625%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+2000%
2−3
−2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+1833%
3−4
−1833%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+1750%
4−5
−1750%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−12 0−1
Valorant 100−110
+1700%
6−7
−1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 0−1
Valorant 50−55
+1600%
3−4
−1600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Dota 2 35−40
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.27 0.62
Recency 15 August 2020 21 August 2006
Chip lithography 10 nm 90 nm

Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 1556.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 510M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7
Iris Xe Graphics G7
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 510M
Quadro NVS 510M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 2675 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 510M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Xe Graphics G7 or Quadro NVS 510M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.