Quadro FX 3500 vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs with Quadro FX 3500, including specs and performance data.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
2020
28 Watt
9.47
+1313%

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs outperforms FX 3500 by a whopping 1313% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4671181
Place by popularity87not in top-100
Power efficiency23.190.57
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeG71
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 August 2020 (4 years ago)22 May 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores96no data
Core clock speed400 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data278 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rateno data9.000
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data20

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data173 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data256 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data660 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data42.24 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 Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_19.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
1440p15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
4K110−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1599.00
1440pno data1599.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 36
+1700%
2−3
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Hitman 3 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 124
+1450%
8−9
−1450%
Metro Exodus 35
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90
+1400%
6−7
−1400%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Cyberpunk 2077 13 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Hitman 3 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 112
+1500%
7−8
−1500%
Metro Exodus 28
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 84
+1580%
5−6
−1580%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+1475%
4−5
−1475%
Hitman 3 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+1425%
4−5
−1425%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+1400%
4−5
−1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs and FX 3500 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 2500% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is 1400% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.47 0.67
Recency 15 August 2020 22 May 2006
Chip lithography 10 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 80 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs has a 1313.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 800% more advanced lithography process, and 185.7% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs is a notebook card while Quadro FX 3500 is a 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.


Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3500
Quadro FX 3500

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.


3.6 982 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3500 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.