GeForce GT 720M vs Quadro FX 4600

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4600 with GeForce GT 720M, including specs and performance data.

FX 4600
2007
768 MB GDDR3, 134 Watt
1.07

GT 720M outperforms FX 4600 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10921068
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.572.48
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameG80GK208
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)25 December 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores96192
Core clock speed500 MHz719 MHz
Boost clock speedno data758 MHz
Number of transistors681 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)134 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate24.0012.13
Floating-point processing power0.2304 TFLOPS0.2911 TFLOPS
ROPs248
TMUs2416

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount768 MB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth67.2 GB/s12.8 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 2560x1600
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 2560x1600
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 API
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/A1.1.126
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.

FX 4600 1.07
GT 720M 1.15
+7.5%

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 4600 425
GT 720M 458
+7.8%

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 HD12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p166.58no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+0%
6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20
+0%
20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3
+0%
World of Tanks 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how FX 4600 and GT 720M compete in popular games:

  • GT 720M is 8% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 40 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.07 1.15
Recency 5 March 2007 25 December 2013
Maximum RAM amount 768 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 134 Watt 33 Watt

GT 720M has a 7.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 306.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 4600 and GeForce GT 720M.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4600 is a workstation card while GeForce GT 720M is a notebook 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 4600
Quadro FX 4600
NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M
GeForce GT 720M

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 999 votes

Rate GeForce GT 720M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 4600 or GeForce GT 720M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.