Quadro FX 3700 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with Quadro FX 3700, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
9.01
+819%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms FX 3700 by a whopping 819% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4881115
Place by popularity28not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency41.350.86
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameVegaG92
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 January 2020 (5 years ago)8 January 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,599

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 cores512112
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data754 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt78 Watt
Texture fill rateno data28.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.28 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data56

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data51.2 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 data2x DVI, 1x S-Video

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

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 HD23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
1440p17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
4K90−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data799.50
1440pno data1599.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Elden Ring 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Forza Horizon 4 32
+967%
3−4
−967%
Metro Exodus 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Valorant 44
+1000%
4−5
−1000%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Dota 2 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Elden Ring 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Far Cry 5 30
+900%
3−4
−900%
Fortnite 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Grand Theft Auto V 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Metro Exodus 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 57
+850%
6−7
−850%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Valorant 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
World of Tanks 48
+860%
5−6
−860%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1
Dota 2 48
+860%
5−6
−860%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+914%
7−8
−914%
Valorant 37
+825%
4−5
−825%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9 0−1
Elden Ring 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1
World of Tanks 21
+950%
2−3
−950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Metro Exodus 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Valorant 39
+875%
4−5
−875%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Elden Ring 6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Metro Exodus 6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+900%
1−2
−900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and FX 3700 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1050% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1600% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.01 0.98
Recency 7 January 2020 8 January 2008
Chip lithography 7 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 78 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 819.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while Quadro FX 3700 is a 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 3700
Quadro FX 3700

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 1260 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 3700 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.