Arc A730M vs Quadro FX 1700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1700 with Arc A730M, including specs and performance data.
A730M outperforms FX 1700 by a whopping 4457% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1281 | 264 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.94 | 22.51 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | G84 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 September 2007 (18 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 32 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 460 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 42 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.360 | 393.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.05888 TFLOPS | 12.6 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 16 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 4.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 12 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 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 | DDR2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
| 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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−7200%
| 73
+7200%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 45 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 22 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 699.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 155
+0%
|
155
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how FX 1700 and Arc A730M compete in popular games:
- Arc A730M is 7200% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.51 | 23.24 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 42 Watt | 80 Watt |
FX 1700 has 90.5% lower power consumption.
Arc A730M, on the other hand, has a 4456.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A730M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1700 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1700 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A730M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
