Quadro FX 2700M vs FirePro M6100

Place in the ranking	600	1120
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	no data	1.00
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Emerald	G94
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	27 May 2014 (10 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 cores	896	48
Core clock speed	1100 MHz	530 MHz
Number of transistors	2,080 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	61.60	12.72
Floating-point processing power	1.971 TFLOPS	0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	56	24

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	large
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-HE
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	799 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	51.14 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 Connectors

Portable Device Dependent

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5 (6.0)	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.170	N/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 M6100 5.70
+500%

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 M6100 2194
+499%

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 M6100 19876
+610%

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:

Full HD

48
+500%

8−9

−500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

12.49

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10
+200%

3−4

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +500%	6−7 −500%
Hitman 3	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +169%	12−14 −169%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +54.8%	30−35 −54.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +500%	6−7 −500%
Hitman 3	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +169%	12−14 −169%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +90%	10−11 −90%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +54.8%	30−35 −54.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +500%	6−7 −500%
Hitman 3	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +169%	12−14 −169%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +90%	10−11 −90%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +54.8%	30−35 −54.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+1400%

1−2

−1400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Hitman 3	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+233%

3−4

−233%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

This is how FirePro M6100 and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

FirePro M6100 is 500% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro M6100 is 1400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, FirePro M6100 surpassed FX 2700M in all 40 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.70	0.95
Recency	27 May 2014	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm

FirePro M6100 has a 500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro M6100 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.