Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro P400
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P400 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms P400 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 688 | 537 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.35 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.85 | 18.64 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 256 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1252 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.03 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.641 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 32.06 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 | 3x mini-DisplayPort | 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 (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 10−12
−90%
| 19
+90%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−100%
| 10
+100%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−87.5%
| 15
+87.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.00 | no data |
| 1440p | 24.00 | no data |
| 4K | 15.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P400 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 90% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 100% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 88% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.15 | 7.33 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 76.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P400 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
