Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Quadro NVS 5100M

Place in performance ranking	1085	386
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.04	no data
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	Gen. 12 Xe (2020)
GPU code name	N10P-NS	iDG1LPDEV
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)	31 October 2020 (3 years ago)
Current price	$105	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	96
Core clock speed	550 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1650 MHz
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	79.20

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro NVS 5100M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 4.0 x4

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	DDR3	LPDDR4x
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	4266 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	68.26 GB/s
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 data

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	10.1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.4
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	3.0
Vulkan	no data	1.2

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 −1200%	26 +1200%
1440p	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%
4K	1−2 −1500%	16 +1500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−500%

18−20
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1150%	24−27 +1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −560%	30−35 +560%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −875%	35−40 +875%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1000%	33 +1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −300%	48 +300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −3200%	33 +3200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −333%	39 +333%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1150%	24−27 +1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −480%	29 +480%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −875%	35−40 +875%
Hitman 3	3−4 −300%	12 +300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −217%	38 +217%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −2900%	30 +2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 −88.9%	17 +88.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1033%	34 +1033%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1150%	24−27 +1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −560%	30−35 +560%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −875%	35−40 +875%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −117%	26 +117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −500%	18 +500%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−2400%

25
+2400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −2100%	21−24 +2100%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	20−22

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −250%	14−16 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	21−24
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	5−6 −420%	24−27 +420%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	5−6
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−450%

10−12
+450%

This is how NVS 5100M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1200% faster in 1080p
Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1900% faster in 1440p
Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 1500% faster in 4K

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 3200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Iris Xe MAX Graphics surpassed NVS 5100M in all 36 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.93	11.42
Recency	7 January 2010	31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	25 Watt