Quadro FX 3700 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

Place in performance ranking	148	1074
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	28.59	0.02
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Turing TU116	G92
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	29 October 2019 (4 years ago)	8 January 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$1,599
Current price	$277 (1.2x MSRP)	$256 (0.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Super has 142850% better value for money than FX 3700.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1408	112
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	78 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	28.00
Floating-point performance	no data	280 gflops

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	14000 MHz	1600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.0 GB/s	51.2 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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, 1x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI	+	no data
HDCP	+	no data
G-SYNC support	+	no data

Supported technologies

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

NVENC	+	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.04
+3271%

FX 3700 0.98

GeForce GTX 1660 Super outperforms Quadro FX 3700 by 3271% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1660 Super 12773
+3288%

FX 3700 377

GeForce GTX 1660 Super outperforms Quadro FX 3700 by 3288% in Passmark.

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	91 +4450%	2−3 −4450%
1440p	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
4K	32	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

76
+3700%

2−3

−3700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	88 +4300%	2−3 −4300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	66 +6500%	1−2 −6500%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +3467%	3−4 −3467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +3500%	2−3 −3500%
Far Cry New Dawn	121 +3933%	3−4 −3933%
Forza Horizon 4	144 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
Hitman 3	117 +3800%	3−4 −3800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	186 +3620%	5−6 −3620%
Metro Exodus	144 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	163 +3975%	4−5 −3975%
Watch Dogs: Legion	83 +4050%	2−3 −4050%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	73 +3550%	2−3 −3550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	48 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +3467%	3−4 −3467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	96 +4700%	2−3 −4700%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Far Cry 5	147 +3575%	4−5 −3575%
Far Cry New Dawn	93 +4550%	2−3 −4550%
Forza Horizon 4	135 +3275%	4−5 −3275%
Hitman 3	63 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	144 +3500%	4−5 −3500%
Metro Exodus	101 +4950%	2−3 −4950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	64 +6300%	1−2 −6300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	106 +3433%	3−4 −3433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	113 +3667%	3−4 −3667%
Watch Dogs: Legion	71 +3450%	2−3 −3450%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	51 +5000%	1−2 −5000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Cyberpunk 2077	49 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +3500%	2−3 −3500%
Forza Horizon 4	107 +3467%	3−4 −3467%
Horizon Zero Dawn	99 +4850%	2−3 −4850%
Metro Exodus	93 +4550%	2−3 −4550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	61 +6000%	1−2 −6000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	31	0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

57
+5600%

1−2

−5600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
Far Cry New Dawn	82 +4000%	2−3 −4000%
Hitman 3	41 +4000%	1−2 −4000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Cyberpunk 2077	26	0−1
Far Cry 5	65 +6400%	1−2 −6400%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +4100%	2−3 −4100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	71 +3450%	2−3 −3450%
Metro Exodus	67 +6600%	1−2 −6600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24	0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	109 +3533%	3−4 −3533%
Far Cry New Dawn	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Hitman 3	25	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18	0−1
Battlefield 5	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Cyberpunk 2077	11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	54 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Metro Exodus	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

This is how GTX 1660 Super and FX 3700 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Super is 4450% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Super is 5200% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.04	0.98
Recency	29 October 2019	8 January 2008
Cost	$229	$1599
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	78 Watt