Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro 5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms 5000M by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 627 | 540 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.67 | 18.61 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 July 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 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 | 320 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 40 | no data |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | no data |
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.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 14−16
−42.9%
| 20
+42.9%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−42.9%
| 10
+42.9%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−55.6%
| 14
+55.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−91.7%
|
23
+91.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−40%
|
14
+40%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
26
+23.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20
+42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−43.3%
|
40−45
+43.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−39.1%
|
30−35
+39.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14
+27.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−36.8%
|
24−27
+36.8%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−24.6%
|
75−80
+24.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
23
+9.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10
−10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−33.7%
|
110−120
+33.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+7.7%
|
39
−7.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−35.7%
|
19
+35.7%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−43.3%
|
40−45
+43.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−39.1%
|
30−35
+39.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−54.5%
|
16−18
+54.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+30.8%
|
13
−30.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−36.8%
|
24−27
+36.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−57.1%
|
22
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−24.6%
|
75−80
+24.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−9.5%
|
23
+9.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9
−11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+16.7%
|
36
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−39.1%
|
30−35
+39.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9
−22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−36.8%
|
24−27
+36.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+27.3%
|
11
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−24.6%
|
75−80
+24.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
−43.3%
|
40−45
+43.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−20%
|
6
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−14.7%
|
35−40
+14.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−44.6%
|
80−85
+44.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−25%
|
10
+25%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−44%
|
35−40
+44%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16
−6.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 5000M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 43% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 43% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 56% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 120% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M is ahead in 10 tests (15%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 50 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.36 | 7.60 |
| Recency | 27 July 2010 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 41.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 5000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
