FirePro W8000 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with FirePro W8000, including specs and performance data.
W8000 outperforms Tiger Lake-U Graphics G7 by a moderate 10% 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 | 506 | 480 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.49 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.47 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (5 years ago) | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 96 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 100.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.226 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
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 | DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 176 GB/s |
| 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 data | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 4 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−9.9%
|
100−105
+9.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−4.9%
|
150−160
+4.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−2.9%
|
70−75
+2.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−9.9%
|
100−105
+9.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−2.9%
|
70−75
+2.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
−5.3%
|
60−65
+5.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−4.2%
|
75−80
+4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−5.8%
|
110−120
+5.8%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.26 | 10.18 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 14 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 28 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro W8000, on the other hand, has a 9.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and FirePro W8000.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W8000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
