Quadro K3000M vs Iris Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Iris Xe Graphics G7 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 outperforms K3000M by a whopping 140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 447 | 689 |
| Place by popularity | 17 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.94 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.90 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $155 |
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 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 654 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 31.39 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 48 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 89.6 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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 | 75−80
+127%
| 33
−127%
|
| Full HD | 85−90
+130%
| 37
−130%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.19 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+121%
|
18−20
−121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+70.4%
|
50−55
−70.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+106%
|
70−75
−106%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+91.7%
|
35−40
−91.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+121%
|
18−20
−121%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+185%
|
12−14
−185%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+127%
|
10−12
−127%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+70.4%
|
50−55
−70.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+91.7%
|
35−40
−91.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+121%
|
18−20
−121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+127%
|
10−12
−127%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+147%
|
30−33
−147%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+149%
|
40−45
−149%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+150%
|
20−22
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Iris Xe Graphics G7 and K3000M compete in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 127% faster in 900p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 130% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 is 2300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 39 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (37%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.25 | 4.27 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 1 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 28 nm |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 has a 140% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K3000M 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.
