Quadro FX 2700M vs GeForce GTS 250M

Place in the ranking	991	1113
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	3.54	1.01
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT215	G94
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.95

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	96	48
Core clock speed	500 MHz	530 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.00	12.72
Floating-point processing power	0.24 TFLOPS	0.1272 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	360	no data
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	32	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	large	large
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-HE
SLI options	+	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	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	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 2000 MHz	799 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.2 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	HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	2.1	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	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.

GTS 250M 1.43
+50.5%

FX 2700M 0.95

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.

GTS 250M 553
+51.1%

FX 2700M 366

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.

GTS 250M 3659
+30.7%

FX 2700M 2799

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

28
+55.6%

18−20

−55.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

5.55

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
+100%

1−2

−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GTS 250M and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

GTS 250M is 56% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTS 250M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTS 250M is ahead in 36 tests (90%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.43	0.95
Recency	15 June 2009	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	65 Watt

GTS 250M has a 50.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 132.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 250M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation one.

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