UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Quadro FX 770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 770M with UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs outperforms FX 770M by a whopping 704% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1217 | 660 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | 11.21 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | G96 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $527 | no data |
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 | 32 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.000 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no 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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | 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 type | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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 HD | 2−3
−750%
| 17
+750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 263.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−250%
|
21
+250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−175%
|
22
+175%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−183%
|
17
+183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−388%
|
35−40
+388%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
−47.1%
|
25
+47.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−167%
|
16
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−388%
|
35−40
+388%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| World of Tanks | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FX 770M and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 750% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 3200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is ahead in 30 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 4.26 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 28 Watt |
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has a 703.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 770M 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
