Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro 4000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
3.30

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms 4000M by a whopping 130% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking740528
Place by popularitynot in top-10065
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.35no data
Power efficiency2.2618.58
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameGF104Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

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 cores33680
Core clock speed475 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate26.60no data
Floating-point processing power0.6384 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs56no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed625 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
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 outputsno data

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.1-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro 4000M 3.30
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.58
+130%

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.

Quadro 4000M 2092
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 5332
+155%

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.

Quadro 4000M 10722
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21729
+103%

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 HD71
+274%
19
−274%
1440p4−5
−150%
10
+150%
4K7−8
−143%
17
+143%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.32no data
1440p112.25no data
4K64.14no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−133%
14
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−90%
18−20
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−850%
19
+850%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−117%
13
+117%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−158%
45−50
+158%
Hitman 3 8−9
−100%
16
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−79.2%
40−45
+79.2%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−660%
38
+660%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−150%
20−22
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−92.3%
24−27
+92.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−55%
62
+55%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−90%
18−20
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−700%
16
+700%
Battlefield 5 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−158%
45−50
+158%
Hitman 3 8−9
−87.5%
15
+87.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−79.2%
40−45
+79.2%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−440%
27
+440%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−150%
20−22
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−84.6%
24
+84.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−46.7%
21−24
+46.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−22.5%
49
+22.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−90%
18−20
+90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−158%
45−50
+158%
Hitman 3 8−9
−50%
12
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+50%
16
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−53.8%
20
+53.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+36.4%
11
−36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−150%
20−22
+150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 27−30
Hitman 3 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−400%
10
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
−135%
45−50
+135%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+0%
16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Quadro 4000M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 4000M is 274% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 150% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 143% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 50% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 850% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro 4000M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 60 tests (86%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.30 7.58
Recency 22 February 2011 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 28 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 129.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a mobile 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

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 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 921 vote

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 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.