Quadro FX 2700M vs ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3870 X2 with Quadro FX 2700M, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 3870 X2 outperforms FX 2700M by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 925 | 1129 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 0.77 | 1.00 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | R680 | G94 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 January 2008 (17 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $99.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
ATI HD 3870 X2 has 150% better value for money than FX 2700M.
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 | 320 ×2 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.20 ×2 | 12.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.528 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.1272 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 ×2 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-HE |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB ×2 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 901 MHz | 799 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.66 GB/s ×2 | 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 39 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.84 | 0.95 |
| Recency | 26 January 2008 | 14 August 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 65 Watt |
ATI HD 3870 X2 has a 93.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 18.2% more advanced lithography process.
FX 2700M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and 153.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 3870 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 3870 X2 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
