GeForce GT 435M vs Quadro FX 3700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
FX 3000 FX 3000G FX 3400 FX 3450 FX 3500 FX 3700 FX 3800 FX 4700 X2 Plex 2100 D4 VX 200
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
615 GT 415M GT 420M GT 425M GT 435M GT 520M GT 525M GT 540M GT 550M GT 640M LE

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 with GeForce GT 435M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700
2008, $1,599
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.89

435M outperforms FX 3700 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FX 3700 FX 3700
GT 435M GT 435M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12031089
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.882.83
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG92GF108
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 January 2008 (18 years ago)3 September 2010 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 no data

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 cores11296
Core clock speed500 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors754 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)78 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate28.0010.40
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPS0.2496 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs5616
L1 Cacheno data128 KB
L2 Cache64 KB256 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
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width1-slotno 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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s25.6 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 API with Feature Level 12.1
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1+

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.

FX 3700 0.89
GT 435M 1.28
+43.8%

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.

FX 3700 371
Samples: 285
GT 435M 535
+44.2%
Samples: 142

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:

900p12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%
Full HD16−18
−50%
24
+50%

Cost per frame, $

1080p99.94no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 3700 and GT 435M compete in popular games:

  • GT 435M is 58% faster in 900p
  • GT 435M is 50% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.89 1.28
Recency 8 January 2008 3 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 78 Watt 35 Watt

GT 435M has a 44% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 63% more advanced lithography process, and 123% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 435M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 435M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
FX 1700 Quadro FX 1700
GT 435M GeForce GT 435M
vs
ATI Mobility HD 5650 Mobility Radeon HD 5650
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
FX 580 Quadro FX 580
Plex 2200 S4 NVIDIA Quadro Plex 2200 S4
vs
R7 240 OEM R7 240 OEM
Tesla M1060 NVIDIA Tesla M1060
vs
RX 7400 RX 7400
Tesla S1075 NVIDIA Tesla S1075
vs
RTX A1000 Mobile RTX A1000 Mobile
FX 4700 X2 NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
vs
GeForce MX250 GeForce MX250
FX 4700 X2 NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
vs
RTX 4060 AD106 RTX 4060 AD106
FX 3700 NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
vs
GTX 650 Ti OEM GTX 650 Ti OEM
NVS 290 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
vs
RTX 3070 Ti RTX 3070 Ti
FX 370 NVIDIA Quadro FX 370
vs
Xbox Series X 6nm GPU Xbox Series X 6nm GPU
FX 370 NVIDIA Quadro FX 370
vs
RTX 5090 DD RTX 5090 DD
FX 570 NVIDIA Quadro FX 570
vs
GT 220 GT 220

Community ratings

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

4.1 25 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 6 votes

Rate GeForce GT 435M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3700 or GeForce GT 435M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.