Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 vs Quadro P4000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Max-Q with Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Max-Q outperforms Tiger Lake-U Graphics G7 by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 299 | 509 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.19 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (5 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 | 1792 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1114 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.401 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 112 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | no data |
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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 95
+138%
| 40−45
−138%
|
| 4K | 33
+136%
| 14−16
−136%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+144%
|
50−55
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+144%
|
50−55
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+124%
|
35−40
−124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+133%
|
30−33
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+96.4%
|
55−60
−96.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+144%
|
30−35
−144%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+70.3%
|
90−95
−70.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+144%
|
50−55
−144%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+71.3%
|
140−150
−71.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+70.6%
|
65−70
−70.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+124%
|
35−40
−124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+133%
|
30−33
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+96.4%
|
55−60
−96.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+126%
|
35−40
−126%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+147%
|
18−20
−147%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+144%
|
30−35
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+229%
|
24−27
−229%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+70.3%
|
90−95
−70.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+70.6%
|
65−70
−70.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+124%
|
35−40
−124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+133%
|
30−33
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+110%
|
40−45
−110%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 40−45
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+144%
|
30−35
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+138%
|
65−70
−138%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+96.4%
|
55−60
−96.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+150%
|
18−20
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+114%
|
70−75
−114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+132%
|
75−80
−132%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+84.6%
|
100−110
−84.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+165%
|
21−24
−165%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+140%
|
20−22
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+145%
|
21−24
−145%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+136%
|
14−16
−136%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+155%
|
20−22
−155%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+153%
|
45−50
−153%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+112%
|
30−35
−112%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
This is how P4000 Max-Q and Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 compete in popular games:
- P4000 Max-Q is 138% faster in 1080p
- P4000 Max-Q is 136% 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 P4000 Max-Q is 260% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, P4000 Max-Q surpassed Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in all 47 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.08 | 9.26 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 10 nm |
P4000 Max-Q has a 127.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 60% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P4000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
