Quadro FX 3700M vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU with Quadro FX 3700M, including specs and performance data.
M1 8-Core GPU outperforms 3700M by a whopping 1102% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 436 | 1153 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.10 |
| Architecture | no data | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | no data | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (5 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $925 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 35.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
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 | no data | MXM-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 type | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 28
+1300%
| 2−3
−1300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 462.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Palworld | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| Palworld | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+261%
|
30−35
−261%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+596%
|
24−27
−596%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+473%
|
14−16
−473%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1125%
|
4−5
−1125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Palworld | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+261%
|
30−35
−261%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+473%
|
14−16
−473%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+261%
|
30−35
−261%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Palworld | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+1286%
|
7−8
−1286%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+727%
|
10−12
−727%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+6200%
|
2−3
−6200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Palworld | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+786%
|
7−8
−786%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Palworld | 10−11 | 0−1 |
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and FX 3700M compete in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 1300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 6200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Apple M1 8-Core GPU surpassed FX 3700M in all 41 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.86 | 1.07 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 14 August 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 65 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 1102% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 3700M 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.
