Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro NVS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 2063% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1291 | 530 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Power efficiency | 2.01 | 18.61 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | G98 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2008 (16 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 | 8 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.640 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0232 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Interface | MXM-I | 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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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 | 0−1 | 19 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 10 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 15 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
11
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30
+500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−333%
|
26
+333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−380%
|
24
+380%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−785%
|
110−120
+785%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−771%
|
60−65
+771%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 160M is 60% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 2100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- NVS 160M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 31 test (50%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 7.57 |
| Recency | 15 August 2008 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 28 Watt |
NVS 160M has 133.3% lower power consumption.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 2062.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 550% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
