Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro M3000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.64
+92.6%

M3000M outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs by an impressive 93% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking367540
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.3818.61
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGM204Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 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 cores1,02480
Core clock speed1050 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate67.20no data
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs64no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1253 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth160 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212_1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA5.2-

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.

M3000M 14.64
+92.6%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.60

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

M3000M 8289
+55.4%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 5332

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.

M3000M 27405
+26.1%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21729

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

M3000M 6537
+63%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 4010

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

M3000M 44603
+103%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21931

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

M3000M 80
+82.5%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 44

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 HD60
+200%
20
−200%
1440p18−20
+80%
10
−80%
4K25
+78.6%
14
−78.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+52.2%
23
−52.2%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+127%
11
−127%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+100%
14
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+119%
16
−119%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+127%
26
−127%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+178%
9
−178%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+133%
12
−133%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+135%
20
−135%
Fortnite 75−80
+81.4%
40−45
−81.4%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+164%
14
−164%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+92.3%
24−27
−92.3%
Valorant 110−120
+51.3%
75−80
−51.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+192%
12
−192%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+157%
23
−157%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+150%
10
−150%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+63.5%
110−120
−63.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+180%
10
−180%
Dota 2 85−90
+126%
39
−126%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+147%
19
−147%
Fortnite 75−80
+81.4%
40−45
−81.4%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+118%
16−18
−118%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+277%
13
−277%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+133%
12
−133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+92.3%
24−27
−92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+90.9%
22
−90.9%
Valorant 110−120
+51.3%
75−80
−51.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+157%
23
−157%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+400%
5
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+211%
9
−211%
Dota 2 85−90
+144%
36
−144%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+161%
18
−161%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+311%
9
−311%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+92.3%
24−27
−92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+100%
11
−100%
Valorant 110−120
+51.3%
75−80
−51.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+81.4%
40−45
−81.4%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+85.5%
55−60
−85.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+267%
6
−267%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+218%
40−45
−218%
Valorant 140−150
+77.8%
80−85
−77.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+171%
14−16
−171%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+100%
6
−100%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+150%
12
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+100%
16−18
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+120%
10
−120%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
Valorant 75−80
+108%
35−40
−108%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 45−50
+206%
16
−206%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+118%
10−12
−118%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how M3000M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 200% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 80% faster in 1440p
  • M3000M is 79% 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 M3000M is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M3000M is ahead in 66 tests (99%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.64 7.60
Recency 18 August 2015 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 28 Watt

M3000M has a 92.6% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 167.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 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.


NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

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.


3.8 360 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 949 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M3000M or Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.