Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Quadro RTX 5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 with Iris Xe MAX Graphics, including specs and performance data.

RTX 5000
2018, $2,299
16 GB GDDR6, 230 Watt
36.77
+753%

RTX 5000 outperforms MAX Graphics by a whopping 753% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking147728
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.43no data
Power efficiency12.3713.34
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameTU104DG1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 August 2018 (8 years ago)31 October 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3072768
Core clock speed1620 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1815 MHz1650 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate348.579.20
Floating-point processing power11.15 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs6424
TMUs19248
Tensor Cores384no data
Ray Tracing Cores48no data
L1 Cache3 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MB1024 KB
L3 Cacheno data4 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR6LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s68.26 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
CUDA7.5-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RTX 5000 36.77
+753%
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 4.31

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RTX 5000 15318
+752%
Samples: 1205
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1797
Samples: 9

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 HD230−240
+752%
27
−752%
1440p170−180
+750%
20
−750%
4K130−140
+713%
16
−713%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.00no data
1440p13.52no data
4K17.68no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Fortnite 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Fortnite 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 22
+0%
22
+0%
Palworld 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how RTX 5000 and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5000 is 752% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 5000 is 750% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 5000 is 713% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 36.77 4.31
Recency 13 August 2018 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 25 Watt

RTX 5000 has a 753% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 20% more advanced lithography process, and 820% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe MAX Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation graphics card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 249 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 292 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 5000 or Iris Xe MAX Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.