UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Quadro FX 2500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, including specs and performance data.

FX 2500M
2005
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.56

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 713% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking1175619
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureG7x (2005−2007)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG71glmTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date29 September 2005 (18 years ago)15 August 2020 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data
Current price$126 (1.3x MSRP)no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3248
Core clock speed8 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed500 MHz1450 MHz
Number of transistors278 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate12.00no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 2500M and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-IIIno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1200 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 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12_1
Shader Model3.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/Ano data

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 HD2−3
−750%
17
+750%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 0−1 no data
Hitman 3 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 no data
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12
−692%
95−100
+692%
Battlefield 5 10−12
−673%
85−90
+673%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−710%
170−180
+710%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−692%
95−100
+692%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Battlefield 5 10−12
−673%
85−90
+673%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−710%
170−180
+710%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−692%
95−100
+692%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−700%
80−85
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−710%
170−180
+710%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−692%
95−100
+692%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−713%
65−70
+713%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Hitman 3 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%

This is how FX 2500M and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 750% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.56 4.55
Recency 29 September 2005 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 90 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 28 Watt

The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 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 FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M
Intel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

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 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 428 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 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.