Radeon RX 6900 XT vs Quadro FX 3700M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1500M 1600M 1700M 1800M 2500M 2700M 2800M 3500M 3600M 3700M 3800M
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
5900 5900 XT 5950 5950 XT 6800 6800 3456SP 6800 XT 6850 XT 6900 6900 XT 6950 XT

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700M with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700M
2008, $925
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.06

6900 XT outperforms 3700M by a whopping 5922% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FX 3700M FX 3700M
RX 6900 XT RX 6900 XT

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking114135
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0129.43
Power efficiency1.0916.38
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG92Navi 21
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 August 2008 (17 years ago)28 October 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$925 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6900 XT has 294200% better value for money than FX 3700M.

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores1285120
Core clock speed550 MHz1825 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2250 MHz
Number of transistors754 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate35.20720.0
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS23.04 TFLOPS
ROPs16128
TMUs64320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80
L0 Cacheno data1.3 MB
L1 Cacheno data1 MB
L2 Cache64 KB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data128 MB

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
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data3-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 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FX 3700M 1.06
RX 6900 XT 63.83
+5922%

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 444
Samples: 178
RX 6900 XT 26677
+5908%
Samples: 7940

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 HD3−4
−6533%
199
+6533%
1440p2−3
−6750%
137
+6750%
4K1−2
−8400%
85
+8400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p308.33
−6042%
5.02
+6042%
1440p462.50
−6243%
7.29
+6243%
4K925.00
−7770%
11.75
+7770%
  • RX 6900 XT has 6042% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6900 XT has 6243% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6900 XT has 7770% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−7950%
160−170
+7950%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 0−1 195
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−7950%
160−170
+7950%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−9500%
190−200
+9500%
Fortnite 2−3
−15000%
300−350
+15000%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−3943%
283
+3943%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−19200%
190−200
+19200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1833%
170−180
+1833%
Valorant 30−35
−1034%
350−400
+1034%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 0−1 196
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−973%
270−280
+973%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−7950%
160−170
+7950%
Dota 2 14−16
−1027%
160−170
+1027%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−9500%
190−200
+9500%
Fortnite 2−3
−15000%
300−350
+15000%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−3886%
279
+3886%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−19200%
190−200
+19200%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−16300%
164
+16300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1833%
170−180
+1833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−5283%
323
+5283%
Valorant 30−35
−1034%
350−400
+1034%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 197
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−7950%
160−170
+7950%
Dota 2 14−16
−1027%
160−170
+1027%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−9500%
190−200
+9500%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−3443%
248
+3443%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1833%
170−180
+1833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−2633%
164
+2633%
Valorant 30−35
−1184%
411
+1184%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−15000%
300−350
+15000%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−4800%
190−200
+4800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
−7086%
500−550
+7086%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−1491%
170−180
+1491%
Valorant 0−1 400−450

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 90−95
Far Cry 5 1−2
−16400%
160−170
+16400%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−7600%
231
+7600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−7600%
150−160
+7600%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−15000%
150−160
+15000%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−1021%
150−160
+1021%
Valorant 5−6
−6460%
300−350
+6460%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−4700%
95−100
+4700%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−3850%
75−80
+3850%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 102
+0%
102
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 196
+0%
196
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 67
+0%
67
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122
+0%
122
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 134
+0%
134
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 162
+0%
162
+0%

This is how FX 3700M and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is 6533% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6900 XT is 6750% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6900 XT is 8400% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 19200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT performs better in 38 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.06 63.83
Recency 14 August 2008 28 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 300 Watt

FX 3700M has 300% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 5922% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 829% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

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

FX 3700M Quadro FX 3700M
vs
FirePro M2000 FirePro M2000
RX 6900 XT Radeon RX 6900 XT
vs
RTX 3080 Ti GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
FX 3700M Quadro FX 3700M
vs
ATI M5800 FirePro M5800
ATI Mobility HD 3850 X2 Mobility HD 3850 X2
vs
Instinct MI350X Instinct MI350X
FX 3700M FX 3700M
vs
GTS 450 Rev. 3 GTS 450 Rev. 3
FX 3700M FX 3700M
vs
GTS 240 OEM GTS 240 OEM
FX 3700M FX 3700M
vs
7800 GTX 7800 GTX
FX 3700M FX 3700M
vs
Xavier Xavier
ATI Mobility HD 4860 Mobility HD 4860
vs
HD 8570 OEM HD 8570 OEM
ATI Mobility HD 4860 Mobility HD 4860
vs
GT 630 Rev. 2 GT 630 Rev. 2
ATI Mobility HD 4860 Mobility HD 4860
vs
Vega 3 Efficient Vega 3 Efficient
ATI Mobility HD 4860 Mobility HD 4860
vs
R8 M350DX R8 M350DX
ATI Mobility HD 4860 Mobility HD 4860
vs
Quadro P2200 P2200

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
4.1 4438 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3700M or Radeon RX 6900 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.