Quadro FX 2700M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with Quadro FX 2700M, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
9.03
+851%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms FX 2700M by a whopping 851% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4791116
Place by popularity29not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.02
Power efficiency41.671.01
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameVegaG94
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date7 January 2020 (4 years ago)14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores51248
Core clock speedno data530 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data505 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rateno data12.72
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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 datalarge
Interfaceno dataMXM-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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data799 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data51.14 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.03
+851%
FX 2700M 0.95

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 22428
+701%
FX 2700M 2799

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 HD22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
1440p16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
4K10
+900%
1−2
−900%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data49.98
1440pno data99.95
4Kno data99.95

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 19
+533%
3−4
−533%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+367%
3−4
−367%
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+917%
6−7
−917%
Hitman 3 15
+200%
5−6
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+292%
12−14
−292%
Metro Exodus 35
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
+414%
7−8
−414%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+93.5%
30−35
−93.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+917%
6−7
−917%
Hitman 3 15
+200%
5−6
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+292%
12−14
−292%
Metro Exodus 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27
+286%
7−8
−286%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+93.5%
30−35
−93.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+917%
6−7
−917%
Hitman 3 14
+180%
5−6
−180%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24
+84.6%
12−14
−84.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 23
+229%
7−8
−229%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+40%
10−11
−40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
−158%
30−35
+158%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21
+2000%
1−2
−2000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Hitman 3 10
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20
+400%
4−5
−400%
Metro Exodus 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 59
+1375%
4−5
−1375%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 13
+333%
3−4
−333%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1000% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1500% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 900% faster in 4K

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 3200% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2700M is 158% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 39 tests (98%)
  • FX 2700M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.03 0.95
Recency 7 January 2020 14 August 2008
Chip lithography 7 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 65 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 850.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation 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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M
Quadro FX 2700M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 1115 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.