Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro FX 2800M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2800M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

FX 2800M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.08

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms FX 2800M by a whopping 602% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1087528
Place by popularitynot in top-10065
Power efficiency0.9918.58
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG92Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 December 2009 (15 years ago)15 August 2020 (4 years ago)

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 cores9680
Core clock speed600 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate28.80no data
Floating-point processing power0.288 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs48no 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth64 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.

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

FX 2800M 1.08
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 7.58
+602%

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.

FX 2800M 5783
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 21729
+276%

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 HD31
+63.2%
19
−63.2%
1440p1−2
−900%
10
+900%
4K2−3
−750%
17
+750%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−367%
14
+367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−280%
18−20
+280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 45−50
Hitman 3 5−6
−220%
16
+220%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−231%
40−45
+231%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1900%
20−22
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−257%
24−27
+257%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−93.8%
62
+93.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−280%
18−20
+280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10
+233%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 45−50
Hitman 3 5−6
−200%
15
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−231%
40−45
+231%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1900%
20−22
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−243%
24
+243%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−100%
21−24
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−53.1%
49
+53.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−280%
18−20
+280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8
+167%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 45−50
Hitman 3 5−6
−140%
12
+140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−23.1%
16
+23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−186%
20
+186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−71.9%
55−60
+71.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1900%
20−22
+1900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Hitman 3 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 10
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−840%
45−50
+840%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−225%
12−14
+225%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 5−6

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 0−1 4−5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+0%
19
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 38
+0%
38
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+0%
16
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+0%
16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
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

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 2800M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • FX 2800M is 63% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 900% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 750% faster in 4K

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 1900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 42 tests (66%)
  • there's a draw in 22 tests (34%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.08 7.58
Recency 1 December 2009 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 28 Watt

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 601.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 167.9% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M 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 FX 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M
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 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2800M 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.