Iris Xe Graphics G7 vs Quadro P2000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 Max-Q with Iris Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.
P2000 Max-Q outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 378 | 436 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP107GL | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 July 2017 (7 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 cores | 768 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1215 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | DirectX 12_1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 50
+42.9%
| 35−40
−42.9%
|
| 4K | 22
+37.5%
| 16−18
−37.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+34.1%
|
40−45
−34.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+20.9%
|
40−45
−20.9%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+25.8%
|
60−65
−25.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+28.9%
|
35−40
−28.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+31%
|
27−30
−31%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+24.7%
|
80−85
−24.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+31.3%
|
30−35
−31.3%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+34.1%
|
40−45
−34.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+21.2%
|
150−160
−21.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+28.6%
|
35−40
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+20.9%
|
40−45
−20.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+33.3%
|
40−45
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+24.7%
|
80−85
−24.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+37.5%
|
80−85
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
+38.6%
|
70−75
−38.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Valorant | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how P2000 Max-Q and Iris Xe Graphics G7 compete in popular games:
- P2000 Max-Q is 43% faster in 1080p
- P2000 Max-Q is 38% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the P2000 Max-Q is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- P2000 Max-Q is ahead in 34 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.81 | 10.62 |
| Recency | 5 July 2017 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
P2000 Max-Q has a 30% higher aggregate performance score.
Iris Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
