UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) vs Quadro FX 1800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 1800 with UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU), including specs and performance data.

FX 1800
2009
768 MB GDDR3, 59 Watt
1.02

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) outperforms FX 1800 by a whopping 205% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1107758
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiency1.218.68
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG94Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)28 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$489 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 cores6432
Core clock speed550 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1100 MHz
Number of transistors505 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)59 Watt12-25 Watt
Texture fill rate17.60no data
Floating-point processing power0.176 TFLOPSno data
ROPs12no data
TMUs32no 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3DDR4
Maximum RAM amount768 MBno data
Memory bus width192 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth38.4 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortno 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.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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 HD4−5
−225%
13
+225%
4K2−3
−350%
9
+350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p122.25no data
4K244.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3
+0%
3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 8
+0%
8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 32
+0%
32
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 30
+0%
30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 1800 and UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 225% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is 350% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.02 3.11
Recency 30 March 2009 28 May 2019
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 59 Watt 12 Watt

UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) has a 204.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 391.7% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation card while UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) is a notebook 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 FX 1800
Quadro FX 1800
Intel UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 133 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 371 vote

Rate UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 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.