Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro NVS 160M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.

NVS 160M
2008
256 MB GDDR3, 12 Watt
0.35

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 2063% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1287526
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Power efficiency2.0318.84
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG98Tiger Lake Xe
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date15 August 2008 (16 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 cores880
Core clock speed580 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate4.640no data
Floating-point processing power0.0232 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).

InterfaceMXM-Ino 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 amount256 MBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed700 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth11.2 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-
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 HD0−119
1440p-0−110
4K0−114

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−600%
14
+600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−550%
13
+550%
Hitman 3 4−5
−300%
16
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−438%
40−45
+438%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−525%
24−27
+525%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−121%
62
+121%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10
+400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−275%
15
+275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−438%
40−45
+438%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−500%
24
+500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−144%
21−24
+144%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−75%
49
+75%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−300%
8
+300%
Hitman 3 4−5
−200%
12
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−100%
16
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−400%
20
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−22.2%
11
+22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−96.4%
55−60
+96.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Hitman 3 6−7
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4

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%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 38
+0%
38
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+0%
16
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+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

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+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%

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.35 7.57
Recency 15 August 2008 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 28 Watt

NVS 160M has 133.3% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, on the other hand, has a 2062.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 550% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M 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 NVS 160M
Quadro NVS 160M
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 23 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 905 votes

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.