GeForce G210M vs Quadro FX 1700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1700M with GeForce G210M, including specs and performance data.
1700M outperforms G210M by a significant 28% 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 | 1338 | 1392 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.63 | 1.77 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | G96 | GT218 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2008 (17 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (17 years ago) |
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 | 32 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0992 TFLOPS | 0.048 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 72 |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 32 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | Up to 500 (DDR2), Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 12.8 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 outputs | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 1.1 | + |
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.
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.
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 | 18−21
+12.5%
| 16
−12.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4%
|
24−27
−4%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14
−7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4%
|
24−27
−4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4%
|
24−27
−4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FX 1700M and GeForce G210M compete in popular games:
- FX 1700M is 13% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FX 1700M is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 1700M performs better in 10 tests (33%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (67%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.41 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 1 October 2008 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 14 Watt |
FX 1700M has a 28% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce G210M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 63% more advanced lithography process, and 257% lower power consumption.
The Quadro FX 1700M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G210M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1700M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce G210M 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.
