Quadro FX 2700M vs GeForce GT 1030
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 1030 with Quadro FX 2700M, including specs and performance data.
GT 1030 outperforms FX 2700M by a whopping 570% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 585 | 1129 |
| Place by popularity | 24 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.31 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 14.64 | 1.01 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | G94 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $99.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GT 1030 has 11450% better value for money than FX 2700M.
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 | 384 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.23 | 12.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.127 TFLOPS | 0.1272 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-HE |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 799 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 51.14 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 25
+733%
| 3−4
−733%
|
| 1440p | 25
+733%
| 3−4
−733%
|
| 4K | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.16
+954%
| 33.32
−954%
|
| 1440p | 3.16
+954%
| 33.32
−954%
|
| 4K | 7.90
+1165%
| 99.95
−1165%
|
- GT 1030 has 954% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 1030 has 954% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 1030 has 1165% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Fortnite | 47 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Valorant | 152
+390%
|
30−35
−390%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+330%
|
21−24
−330%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+250%
|
14−16
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Fortnite | 36 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Valorant | 123
+297%
|
30−35
−297%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+250%
|
14−16
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 14
−121%
|
30−35
+121%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+580%
|
10−11
−580%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−33
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
This is how GT 1030 and FX 2700M compete in popular games:
- GT 1030 is 733% faster in 1080p
- GT 1030 is 733% faster in 1440p
- GT 1030 is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the GT 1030 is 1100% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2700M is 121% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 1030 is ahead in 36 tests (95%)
- FX 2700M is ahead in 2 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.30 | 0.94 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 14 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 65 Watt |
GT 1030 has a 570.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 116.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 1030 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 1030 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2700M 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.
