GeForce RTX 5080 vs Quadro FX 4700 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4700 X2 with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms FX 4700 X2 by a whopping 5261% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 934 | 3 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 40.70 |
| Power efficiency | 0.54 | 18.06 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2008 (16 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5080 has 203400% better value for money than FX 4700 X2.
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 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 226 Watt | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 128 |
| TMUs | 64 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 304 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 HD | 3−4
−6333%
| 193
+6333%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−7600%
| 154
+7600%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−10100%
| 102
+10100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 999.67
−19213%
| 5.18
+19213%
|
| 1440p | 1499.50
−23015%
| 6.49
+23015%
|
| 4K | 2999.00
−30520%
| 9.79
+30520%
|
- RTX 5080 has 19213% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5080 has 23015% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5080 has 30520% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 650−700
+0%
|
650−700
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 650−700
+0%
|
650−700
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 222
+0%
|
222
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 650−700
+0%
|
650−700
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
This is how FX 4700 X2 and RTX 5080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 6333% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 7600% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 10100% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 45 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.69 | 90.60 |
| Recency | 18 April 2008 | 30 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 226 Watt | 360 Watt |
FX 4700 X2 has 59.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 5080, on the other hand, has a 5260.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4700 X2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 4700 X2 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5080 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.
