Arc A770 vs Quadro FX 1000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 1000 with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

FX 1000
2003
128 MB DDR2
0.08

A770 outperforms FX 1000 by a whopping 39538% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1525191
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data51.31
Power efficiencyno data10.87
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameNV30DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date21 January 2003 (22 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 coresno data4096
Core clock speed300 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors125 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data225 Watt
Texture fill rate2.400614.4
Floating-point processing powerno data19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs4128
TMUs8256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L2 Cacheno data16 MB

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 4.0 x16
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x Molex1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount128 MB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed300 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth9.6 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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-Video1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0a12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
DLSS-+

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 1000 0.08
Arc A770 31.71
+39538%

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 1000 34
Samples: 6
Arc A770 13325
+39091%
Samples: 1502

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-0−1107
1440p-0−163
4K-0−139

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.07
1440pno data5.22
4Kno data8.44

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 317
+0%
317
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70
+0%
70
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 117
+0%
117
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 139
+0%
139
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 143
+0%
143
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 61
+0%
61
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 109
+0%
109
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 127
+0%
127
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+0%
105
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 196
+0%
196
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 58
+0%
58
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 104
+0%
104
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
+0%
72
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90
+0%
90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45
+0%
45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 15
+0%
15
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60
+0%
60
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 48
+0%
48
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 31.71
Recency 21 January 2003 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 6 nm

Arc A770 has a 39537.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 19 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2066.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1000 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A770 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 1000
Quadro FX 1000
Intel Arc A770
Arc A770

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.


4 3 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5477 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 1000 or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.