Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms M2000 by a whopping 606% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1150 | 586 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 92 |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 19.75 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | Turks | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (13 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (5 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 | 480 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Form factor | chip-down | 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 | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 9
−567%
| 60−65
+567%
|
| Full HD | 16
−12.5%
| 18
+12.5%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−800%
| 9
+800%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1300%
| 14
+1300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−371%
|
30−35
+371%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−148%
|
75−80
+148%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−368%
|
110−120
+368%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−160%
|
39
+160%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−371%
|
30−35
+371%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−267%
|
22
+267%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−148%
|
75−80
+148%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−350%
|
9
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−140%
|
36
+140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−371%
|
30−35
+371%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−83.3%
|
11
+83.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−148%
|
75−80
+148%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4300%
|
40−45
+4300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−273%
|
40−45
+273%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−640%
|
35−40
+640%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+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 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M2000 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 567% faster in 900p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 13% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 800% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 1300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 4300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs performs better in 43 tests (66%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (34%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 7.20 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 605.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 17.9% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
