Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) vs Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P6000 with Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), including specs and performance data.
P6000 outperforms Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) by a whopping 636% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 108 | 621 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.21 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.07 | 15.05 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Ice Lake G7 Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 28 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,999 | 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 | 3840 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 12-25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 394.8 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.63 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 96 | no data |
| TMUs | 240 | 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 | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 384 Bit | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 432 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | no data |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync II | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| 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 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 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 | 120−130
+606%
| 17
−606%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P6000 and Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) compete in popular games:
- Quadro P6000 is 606% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 test (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.22 | 5.33 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 28 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 12 Watt |
Quadro P6000 has a 635.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 60% more advanced lithography process, and 1983.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation card while Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is a notebook 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.
