Arc A580 vs Quadro FX 3700M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700M with Arc A580, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700M
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.18

Arc A580 outperforms FX 3700M by a whopping 2458% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1056182
Place by popularitynot in top-100100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.1212.32
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameG92DG2-512
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)10 October 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$925 no data

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 cores1283072
Core clock speed550 MHz1700 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2000 MHz
Number of transistors754 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate35.20384.0
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs1696
TMUs64192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data24

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 8-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s512.0 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 outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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.

FX 3700M 1.18
Arc A580 30.19
+2458%

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.

FX 3700M 456
Arc A580 11648
+2454%

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.

FX 3700M 5053
Arc A580 95677
+1793%

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 HD4−5
−2550%
106
+2550%
1440p2−3
−2850%
59
+2850%
4K1−2
−3300%
34
+3300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1960%
103
+1960%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2000%
80−85
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−8800%
85−90
+8800%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−3300%
100−110
+3300%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−19600%
190−200
+19600%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1383%
85−90
+1383%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1121%
170−180
+1121%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−4650%
95−100
+4650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−1825%
150−160
+1825%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−313%
130−140
+313%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1940%
102
+1940%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2000%
80−85
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−8800%
85−90
+8800%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−3300%
100−110
+3300%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−19600%
190−200
+19600%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1383%
85−90
+1383%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1121%
170−180
+1121%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−4650%
95−100
+4650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2575%
214
+2575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−682%
85−90
+682%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−313%
130−140
+313%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1180%
64
+1180%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2000%
80−85
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2400%
75−80
+2400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−8800%
85−90
+8800%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−8600%
87
+8600%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1383%
85−90
+1383%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−679%
109
+679%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2113%
177
+2113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−518%
68
+518%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−87.5%
60
+87.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−4650%
95−100
+4650%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−8000%
80−85
+8000%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−3100%
60−65
+3100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−5300%
54
+5300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2300%
24−27
+2300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4700%
45−50
+4700%
Hitman 3 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−2075%
87
+2075%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 55
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−3860%
190−200
+3860%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1700%
70−75
+1700%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 35−40

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−3400%
35
+3400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 27−30
Far Cry 5 0−1 24−27

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1750%
35−40
+1750%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 85
+0%
85
+0%
Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 73
+0%
73
+0%
Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 64
+0%
64
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 91
+0%
91
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 130
+0%
130
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+0%
61
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 73
+0%
73
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27
+0%
27
+0%

This is how FX 3700M and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A580 is 2550% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A580 is 2850% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A580 is 3300% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A580 is 19600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A580 is ahead in 42 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 30.19
Recency 14 August 2008 10 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 175 Watt

FX 3700M has 133.3% lower power consumption.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 2458.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.


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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
Quadro FX 3700M
Intel Arc A580
Arc A580

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 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 250 votes

Rate Arc A580 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.