Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro NVS 140M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 140M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

NVS 140M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 10 Watt
0.17

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms NVS 140M by a whopping 3818% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1411542
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.3518.83
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG86Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date9 May 2007 (17 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 cores1680
Core clock speed400 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology80 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate3.200no data
Floating-point processing power0.0256 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no 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

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 width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed600 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth9.6 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 and SDK 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 HD6
−217%
19
+217%
1440p-0−19
4K-0−114

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14
+1300%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
−367%
14
+367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−271%
24−27
+271%
Valorant 24−27
−208%
75−80
+208%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
−955%
110−120
+955%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−900%
10
+900%
Dota 2 9−10
−333%
39
+333%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−271%
24−27
+271%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−340%
22
+340%
Valorant 24−27
−208%
75−80
+208%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−800%
9
+800%
Dota 2 9−10
−300%
36
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−271%
24−27
+271%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−120%
11
+120%
Valorant 24−27
−208%
75−80
+208%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 16−18
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 8−9
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−900%
10
+900%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−20%
18−20
+20%
Valorant 1−2
−3600%
35−40
+3600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 31
+0%
31
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21
+0%
21
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14
+0%
14
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+0%
6
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how NVS 140M and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 217% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 3600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.17 6.66
Recency 9 May 2007 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 80 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 28 Watt

NVS 140M has 180% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 3817.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 140M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 140M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a mobile workstation one.

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 NVS 140M
Quadro NVS 140M
Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs

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.


4.3 10 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 140M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 968 votes

Rate Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 140M or Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.