Quadro FX 2700M vs FirePro M5950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro M5950 and Quadro FX 2700M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FirePro M5950
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
3.42
+260%

M5950 outperforms FX 2700M by a whopping 260% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7351123
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.02
Power efficiency6.731.01
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameWhistlerG94
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date4 January 2011 (14 years ago)14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores48048
Core clock speed725 MHz530 MHz
Number of transistors716 million505 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate17.4012.72
Floating-point processing power0.696 TFLOPS0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs2424

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportn/ano data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-HE
Form factorMXM-Ano 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz799 MHz
Memory bandwidth57 GB/s51.14 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.04.0
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCL1.21.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-1.1

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.

FirePro M5950 3.42
+260%
FX 2700M 0.95

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

FirePro M5950 1314
+259%
FX 2700M 366

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

FirePro M5950 6257
+124%
FX 2700M 2799

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:

900p24
+300%
6−7
−300%
Full HD26
+271%
7−8
−271%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data14.28

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Dota 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
Fortnite 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+182%
10−12
−182%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
World of Tanks 55−60
+157%
21−24
−157%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Dota 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+182%
10−12
−182%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
World of Tanks 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how FirePro M5950 and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro M5950 is 300% faster in 900p
  • FirePro M5950 is 271% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro M5950 is 533% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FirePro M5950 is ahead in 36 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.42 0.95
Recency 4 January 2011 14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 65 Watt

FirePro M5950 has a 260% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The FirePro M5950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro M5950
FirePro M5950
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M
Quadro FX 2700M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 67 votes

Rate FirePro M5950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.