Quadro FX 2700M vs Quadro FX 3700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3700M and Quadro FX 2700M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
FX 3700M outperforms FX 2700M by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1065 | 1121 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 1.09 | 1.01 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | G92 | G94 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $925 | $99.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FX 3700M and FX 2700M have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 128 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.20 | 12.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.352 TFLOPS | 0.1272 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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-HE | MXM-HE |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 799 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 3700M is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 3700M is ahead in 15 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 0.95 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
FX 3700M has a 25.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FX 2700M, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro FX 3700M 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
