Quadro P1000 vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 with Quadro P1000, including specs and performance data.
P1000 outperforms Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 459 | 417 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.62 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.03 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 7 February 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $375 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1493 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1519 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 48.61 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | MXM Module |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96.13 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
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 | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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 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 | 35−40
−31.4%
| 46
+31.4%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−22.2%
| 11
+22.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 8.15 |
| 4K | no data | 34.09 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−18.8%
|
35−40
+18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−12.1%
|
65−70
+12.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−17.5%
|
45−50
+17.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−16.9%
|
90−95
+16.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−21.1%
|
45−50
+21.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−18.8%
|
35−40
+18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+41.5%
|
41
−41.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−17.5%
|
45−50
+17.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−33.8%
|
103
+33.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−21.1%
|
45−50
+21.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
−13.3%
|
160−170
+13.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−18.8%
|
35−40
+18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−16.7%
|
40−45
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
45−50
+12.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−17.5%
|
45−50
+17.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−14.3%
|
85−90
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
−12.1%
|
65−70
+12.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and Quadro P1000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P1000 is 31% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 is 22% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 41% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P1000 is 34% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Quadro P1000 is ahead in 33 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.49 | 11.11 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 7 February 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro P1000, on the other hand, has a 17.1% higher aggregate performance score.
The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is a notebook card while Quadro P1000 is a 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.
