Quadro FX 3700M vs FirePro V7900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A300 A320 V5900 V7900 V7900 SDI
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1500M 1600M 1700M 1800M 2500M 2700M 2800M 3500M 3600M 3700M 3800M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro V7900 with Quadro FX 3700M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro V7900
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 151 Watt
5.42
+407%

V7900 outperforms 3700M by a whopping 407% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
FX 3700M FX 3700M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6711153
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency2.801.10
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameCaymanG92
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date24 May 2011 (15 years ago)14 August 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$925

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores1280128
Core clock speed725 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors2,640 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)151 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate58.0035.20
Floating-point processing power1.856 TFLOPS0.352 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8064
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB64 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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-HE
Length279 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s51.2 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
StereoOutput3D+-
DisplayPort count4no data
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.04.0
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCL1.21.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FirePro V7900 5.42
+407%
FX 3700M 1.07

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.

FirePro V7900 2260
+409%
Samples: 80
FX 3700M 444
Samples: 178

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

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Palworld 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Palworld 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Palworld 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
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

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 41 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 5.42 1.07
Recency 24 May 2011 14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 151 Watt 75 Watt

FirePro V7900 has a 407% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3700M, on the other hand, has 101% lower power consumption.

The FirePro V7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro V7900 is a workstation 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.

FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
Quadro K620 Quadro K620
FX 3700M Quadro FX 3700M
vs
NVS 5200M NVS 5200M
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
GRID M60-4A GRID M60-4A
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900
vs
Arc A770M Arc A770M
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900
vs
Arc 130T Mobile Arc 130T Mobile
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900
vs
Arc 140T Mobile Arc 140T Mobile
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
ATI HD 3450 PCI HD 3450 PCI
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
RX Vega 2 RX Vega 2
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
FX 1700M FX 1700M
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
R5 230 OEM R5 230 OEM
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
vs
GeForce 810A GeForce 810A
V7900 SDI FirePro V7900 SDI
vs
Tesla X2070 Tesla X2070
V7900 SDI FirePro V7900 SDI
vs
GTX 285 Mac Edition GTX 285 Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 20 votes

Rate FirePro V7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 2 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro V7900 or Quadro FX 3700M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.