Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs vs Quadro T2000 Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro T2000 Max-Q with Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, including specs and performance data.

T2000 Max-Q
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
17.90
+89.2%

T2000 Max-Q outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs by an impressive 89% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking302461
Place by popularitynot in top-10076
Power efficiency31.1223.49
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameTU117Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date27 May 2019 (5 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 cores102496
Core clock speed1200 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1620 MHz1350 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate103.7no data
Floating-point processing power3.318 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 sizemedium sizedno 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 width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed2000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth128.0 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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA7.5-

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.

T2000 Max-Q 17.90
+89.2%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 9.46

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.

T2000 Max-Q 11461
+75.8%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 6518

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.

T2000 Max-Q 39269
+51.2%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 25978

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.

T2000 Max-Q 8262
+60.6%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 5143

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.

T2000 Max-Q 41106
+52.5%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 26949

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

T2000 Max-Q 75193
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 208639
+177%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

T2000 Max-Q 3094
+98.3%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 1560

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

T2000 Max-Q 51
+29.3%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 39

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

T2000 Max-Q 97
+123%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 44

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

T2000 Max-Q 75
+1972%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 4

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

T2000 Max-Q 91
+135%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 39

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

T2000 Max-Q 89
+999%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 8

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

T2000 Max-Q 32
+179%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 12

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

T2000 Max-Q 40
+125%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 18

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

T2000 Max-Q 7
+1675%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 0

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05

T2000 Max-Q 94
+142%
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 39

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 HD57
+119%
26
−119%
1440p26
+62.5%
16
−62.5%
4K38
+245%
11
−245%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+40%
20
−40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+141%
22
−141%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+42.9%
21
−42.9%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+100%
27−30
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+75%
16
−75%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+90.9%
21−24
−90.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+84.6%
24−27
−84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+79.4%
60−65
−79.4%
Hitman 3 30−35
+41.7%
24
−41.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
−40.9%
124
+40.9%
Metro Exodus 86
+146%
35
−146%
Red Dead Redemption 2 64
+276%
17
−276%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+90.3%
30−35
−90.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
−4.7%
90
+4.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+73.9%
21−24
−73.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+66.7%
18
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+100%
27−30
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+12.5%
32
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+115%
13
−115%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+90.9%
21−24
−90.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+84.6%
24−27
−84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+79.4%
60−65
−79.4%
Hitman 3 30−35
+47.8%
23
−47.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
−27.3%
112
+27.3%
Metro Exodus 69
+146%
28
−146%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+84.6%
26
−84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+96.7%
30
−96.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+57.7%
24−27
−57.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+2.4%
84
−2.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+78.6%
14
−78.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+56.5%
23
−56.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+155%
11
−155%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+90.9%
21−24
−90.9%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+79.4%
60−65
−79.4%
Hitman 3 30−35
+70%
20
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55
+139%
23
−139%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+146%
24
−146%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+136%
14
−136%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+41%
60−65
−41%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 47
+236%
14
−236%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+88.9%
18−20
−88.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+42.9%
7
−42.9%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+137%
40−45
−137%
Hitman 3 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+80%
20−22
−80%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+84.2%
19
−84.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+78.3%
60−65
−78.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Hitman 3 12−14
+160%
5−6
−160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+136%
35−40
−136%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+50%
12
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+72.7%
11
−72.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%

This is how T2000 Max-Q and Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Max-Q is 119% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Max-Q is 63% faster in 1440p
  • T2000 Max-Q is 245% faster in 4K

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the T2000 Max-Q is 276% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 41% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • T2000 Max-Q is ahead in 68 tests (94%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.90 9.46
Recency 27 May 2019 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 12 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 28 Watt

T2000 Max-Q has a 89.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro T2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 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 T2000 Max-Q
Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

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 67 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 952 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs 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.