Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs Quadro P4000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P4000 outperforms Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs by 296% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 173 | 494 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 59 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 25.18 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | no data |
| Current price | $485 (0.6x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1792 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 5,304 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro P4000 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | no data |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | no data |
| CUDA | 6.1 | no data |
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 | 68
+258%
| 19
−258%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
+250%
| 10
−250%
|
| 4K | 55−60
+293%
| 14
−293%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+264%
|
14
−264%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55
+179%
|
19
−179%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+262%
|
26
−262%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 80−85
+286%
|
21−24
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+292%
|
13
−292%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+290%
|
20
−290%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 75−80
+185%
|
27
−185%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+273%
|
24−27
−273%
|
| Hitman 3 | 90−95
+232%
|
28
−232%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+333%
|
15
−333%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+113%
|
23
−113%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+306%
|
17
−306%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+256%
|
16
−256%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55
+231%
|
16
−231%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+309%
|
23
−309%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 80−85
+286%
|
21−24
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+410%
|
10
−410%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+311%
|
19
−311%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 75−80
+208%
|
25
−208%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+273%
|
24−27
−273%
|
| Hitman 3 | 90−95
+323%
|
22
−323%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+829%
|
7
−829%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+333%
|
12
−333%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6
−717%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 65−70
+283%
|
18
−283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+250%
|
22
−250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+307%
|
14
−307%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50−55
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+309%
|
23
−309%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+538%
|
8
−538%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+333%
|
18
−333%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 75−80
+250%
|
22
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+273%
|
24−27
−273%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+273%
|
11
−273%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+336%
|
10−12
−336%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+633%
|
9−10
−633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+342%
|
12
−342%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+427%
|
10−12
−427%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+417%
|
12−14
−417%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+290%
|
10
−290%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is 258% faster than Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in 1080p
- Quadro P4000 is 250% faster than Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in 1440p
- Quadro P4000 is 293% faster than Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 933% faster than the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in all 68 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.11 | 7.61 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 28 Watt |
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation card while Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
