Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Quadro M5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000 with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.
M5000 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by a whopping 122% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 230 | 425 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 26 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.09 | no data |
Power efficiency | 11.10 | no data |
Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
GPU code name | GM204 | Tiger Lake Xe |
Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2048 | 96 |
Core clock speed | 861 MHz | no data |
Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 5,200 million | no data |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 10 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | no data |
Texture fill rate | 132.9 | no data |
Floating-point processing power | 4.252 TFLOPS | no data |
ROPs | 64 | no data |
TMUs | 128 | 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).
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
Length | 267 mm | no data |
Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
SLI options | + | - |
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 | 256 Bit | DDR4 |
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | no data |
Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | no data |
Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | no data |
Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
Mosaic | + | no data |
High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 | DirectX 12_1 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
CUDA | 5.2 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 47 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 24.29 | 10.93 |
Recency | 29 June 2015 | 15 August 2020 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
Quadro M5000 has a 122.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.