UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) vs FirePro W8000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
D500 D700 S9000 S9010 S9050 S10000 S10000 Passive S10000 Passive 12GB W8000 W9000 Radeon Sky 700 Radeon Sky 900
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 750 32EUs Xe G1 Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W8000 with UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H), including specs and performance data.

FirePro W8000
2012, $1,599
4 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
10.18
+135%

W8000 outperforms Graphics 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) by a whopping 135% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking480709
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.49no data
Power efficiency3.47no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Gen. 12 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameTahitiTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date14 June 2012 (13 years ago)11 May 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 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

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 cores179232
Core clock speed900 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Wattno data
Texture fill rate100.8no data
Floating-point processing power3.226 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs112no data
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1375 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth176 GB/sno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x SDIno data
StereoOutput3D+-
DisplayPort count4no data
Dual-link DVI support+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

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 HD35−40
+106%
17
−106%
1440p70−75
+133%
30
−133%
4K27−30
+125%
12
−125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p45.69no data
1440p22.84no data
4K59.22no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 53
+0%
53
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 34
+0%
34
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 36
+0%
36
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+0%
11
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+0%
8
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how FirePro W8000 and UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W8000 is 106% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro W8000 is 133% faster in 1440p
  • FirePro W8000 is 125% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 10.18 4.33
Recency 14 June 2012 11 May 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm

FirePro W8000 has a 135.1% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro W8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W8000 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) is a notebook one.

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.

AMD FirePro W8000
FirePro W8000
Intel UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
Quadro K4200 Quadro K4200
UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
vs
GeForce MX230 GeForce MX230
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
Tesla K20m Tesla K20m
FirePro W4000 AMD FirePro W4000
vs
Iris Xe Graphics 96EU Xe Graphics 96EU
FirePro W5000 AMD FirePro W5000
vs
M6000 24 GB Quadro M6000 24 GB
FirePro W5000 AMD FirePro W5000
vs
Vega 7 Vega 7
FirePro W8000 AMD FirePro W8000
vs
GTX 485M GTX 485M
FirePro W8000 AMD FirePro W8000
vs
FirePro W5100 FirePro W5100
FirePro W8000 AMD FirePro W8000
vs
RTX 4050 Mobile RTX 4050 Mobile
FirePro W8000 AMD FirePro W8000
vs
RTX 5070 Mobile RTX 5070 Mobile
FirePro W9000 AMD FirePro W9000
vs
R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M295X Mac Edition
FirePro W9000 AMD FirePro W9000
vs
Quadro K2200 Quadro K2200
FirePro W9000 AMD FirePro W9000
vs
Quadro 2000D Quadro 2000D

Community ratings

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

4.2 6 votes

Rate FirePro W8000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 30 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W8000 or UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.