Quadro FX 2500M vs FirePro W7170M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W7170M and Quadro FX 2500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

W7170M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
8.21
+1366%

W7170M outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 1366% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5101213
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.640.85
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameAmethystG71
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date2 October 2015 (9 years ago)29 September 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

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 cores204832
Core clock speed723 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data500 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5412.00
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3216
TMUs12824

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-III
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s38.4 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
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.33.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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.

W7170M 8.21
+1366%
FX 2500M 0.56

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.

W7170M 3161
+1357%
FX 2500M 217

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 HD55
+1733%
3−4
−1733%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data33.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12 0−1
Battlefield 5 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Hitman 3 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+327%
10−12
−327%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12 0−1
Battlefield 5 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Hitman 3 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+327%
10−12
−327%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89
+790%
10−11
−790%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1700%
3−4
−1700%
Hitman 3 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+327%
10−12
−327%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+130%
10−11
−130%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+90%
30−33
−90%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Hitman 3 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

This is how W7170M and FX 2500M compete in popular games:

  • W7170M is 1733% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the W7170M is 5100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, W7170M surpassed FX 2500M in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.21 0.56
Recency 2 October 2015 29 September 2005
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 45 Watt

W7170M has a 1366.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2500M, on the other hand, has 122.2% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W7170M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M 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 W7170M
FirePro W7170M
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 13 votes

Rate FirePro W7170M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M 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.