GeForce4 440 Go vs Quadro FX 2700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2700M with GeForce4 440 Go, including specs and performance data.
2700M outperforms GeForce4 440 Go by a whopping 8700% 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 | 1203 | 1602 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.05 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Celsius (1999−2005) |
| GPU code name | G94 | NV17 A5 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (18 years ago) | 6 February 2002 (24 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.95 | no data |
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 | 48 | 2 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 220 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 220 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 29 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | 0.88 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 2 |
| TMUs | 24 | 4 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-HE | AGP 4x |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 220 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 7.04 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 8.0 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+30.4%
|
21−24
−30.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+30.4%
|
21−24
−30.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+30.4%
|
21−24
−30.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FX 2700M is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 2700M performs better in 23 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.88 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 6 February 2002 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 150 nm |
FX 2700M has a 8700% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 131% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro FX 2700M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 440 Go in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce4 440 Go 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.
