Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) vs Quadro NVS 450

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 450 with Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), including specs and performance data.

NVS 450
2008
256 MB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.15

Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) outperforms NVS 450 by a whopping 3020% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1423624
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.3414.79
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameG98Ice Lake G7 Gen. 11
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)28 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$163.14 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores8 ×264
Core clock speed480 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1100 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt12-25 Watt
Texture fill rate3.840 ×2no data
Floating-point processing power0.0192 TFLOPS ×2no data
ROPs4 ×2no data
TMUs8 ×2no 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 1.0 x16no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3DDR4
Maximum RAM amount256 MB ×2no data
Memory bus width64 Bit ×2no data
Memory clock speed700 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth11.2 GB/s ×2no 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortno 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 HD0−118

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 15
+0%
15
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 12
+0%
12
+0%
Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Fortnite 32
+0%
32
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Fortnite 25
+0%
25
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 5
+0%
5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 15
+0%
15
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.15 4.68
Recency 11 November 2008 28 May 2019
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 12 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) has a 3020% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 450 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 450 is a workstation card while Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) is a notebook 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 450
Quadro NVS 450
Intel Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)

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.


3.7 12 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 241 vote

Rate Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 450 or Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.