UHD Graphics 615 vs Quadro FX 4700 X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4700 X2 with UHD Graphics 615, including specs and performance data.

FX 4700 X2
2008, $2,999
1 GB GDDR3, 226 Watt
1.62

Graphics 615 outperforms 4700 X2 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1008977
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.559.44
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameG92Amber Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date18 April 2008 (18 years ago)7 November 2018 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 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 cores128 ×2192
Core clock speed600 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)226 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate38.40 ×221.60
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPS ×20.3456 TFLOPS
ROPs16 ×23
TMUs64 ×224
L2 Cache64 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GB ×2System Shared
Memory bus width256 Bit ×2System Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s ×2no data
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-VideoPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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 4700 X2 1.62
UHD Graphics 615 1.83
+13%

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 4700 X2 676
Samples: 4
UHD Graphics 615 764
+13%

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 HD8−9
−25%
10
+25%

Cost per frame, $

1080p374.88no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8
+0%
8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 1
+0%
1
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Palworld 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra

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

1440p
Epic

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

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 4700 X2 and UHD Graphics 615 compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 615 is 25% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.62 1.83
Recency 18 April 2008 7 November 2018
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 226 Watt 15 Watt

UHD Graphics 615 has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 364% more advanced lithography process, and 1407% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 615 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4700 X2 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4700 X2 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 615 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.

Community ratings

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


No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 4700 X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 61 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 615 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 4700 X2 or UHD Graphics 615, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.