Quadro FX 770M vs FirePro W7170M

Place in the ranking	513	1212
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	5.67	1.12
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Amethyst	G96
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	2 October 2015 (9 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$527

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2048	32
Core clock speed	723 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	8.000
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	128	16

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	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	25.6 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.3	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

W7170M 8.22
+1342%

FX 770M 0.57

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.

W7170M 3161
+1337%

FX 770M 220

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

54
+1700%

3−4

−1700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

175.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Elden Ring	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Valorant	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Dota 2	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Elden Ring	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +400%	7−8 −400%
Fortnite	45−50	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +713%	8−9 −713%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Valorant	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
World of Tanks	120−130 +624%	16−18 −624%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Dota 2	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +400%	7−8 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +713%	8−9 −713%
Valorant	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9−10	0−1
Elden Ring	10−12	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Valorant	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +20%	14−16 −20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Fortnite	8−9	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	9−10	0−1
Valorant	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

This is how W7170M and FX 770M compete in popular games:

W7170M is 1700% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the W7170M is 5800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, W7170M surpassed FX 770M in all 33 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.22	0.57
Recency	2 October 2015	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	35 Watt

W7170M has a 1342.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 770M, on the other hand, has 185.7% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W7170M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.