Quadro FX 1800 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Quadro FX 1800, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms FX 1800 by a whopping 791% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 484 | 1110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 22.54 | 1.20 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 30 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $489 |
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 | 96 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 59 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.176 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 12 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 198 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 768 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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 | 27
+800%
| 3−4
−800%
|
| 1440p | 16
+1500%
| 1−2
−1500%
|
| 4K | 12
+1100%
| 1−2
−1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 163.00 |
| 1440p | no data | 489.00 |
| 4K | no data | 489.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 41
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Valorant | 124
+933%
|
12−14
−933%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 96
+860%
|
10−11
−860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 51
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Fortnite | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Valorant | 112
+833%
|
12−14
−833%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+843%
|
7−8
−843%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and FX 1800 compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 800% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1500% faster in 1440p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.18 | 1.03 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 30 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 59 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 791.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 110.7% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
