Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Quadro FX 2500M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.

FX 2500M
2005
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.56

Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 813% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1211622
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.8714.25
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameG71DG1
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date29 September 2005 (19 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data

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 cores32768
Core clock speed500 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed500 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors278 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate12.0079.20
Floating-point processing powerno data2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs1624
TMUs2448

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-IIIPCIe 4.0 x4

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 typeGDDR3LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s68.26 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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.4
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.2

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.

FX 2500M 0.56
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.11
+813%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

FX 2500M 217
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971
+808%

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 HD2−3
−1250%
27
+1250%
1440p1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
4K1−2
−1400%
15
+1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p50.00no data
1440p99.99no data
4K99.99no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3100%
30−35
+3100%
Hitman 3 5−6
−380%
24
+380%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−455%
60−65
+455%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−517%
35−40
+517%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−127%
65−70
+127%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3100%
30−35
+3100%
Hitman 3 5−6
−360%
23
+360%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−455%
60−65
+455%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−450%
33
+450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−190%
27−30
+190%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−127%
65−70
+127%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−575%
27−30
+575%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−320%
21
+320%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−136%
26
+136%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−383%
29
+383%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−80%
18
+80%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−127%
65−70
+127%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 10−12
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Hitman 3 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−7100%
70−75
+7100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 5−6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+0%
19
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+0%
33
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+0%
6
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+0%
25
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+0%
11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how FX 2500M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1250% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1600% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1400% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 7100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.56 5.11
Recency 29 September 2005 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 25 Watt

Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 812.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 800% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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.

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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M
Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 254 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.