ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 vs Quadro FX 2500M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2500M and Mobility FireGL V5700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 2500M
2005
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.56
+64.7%

FX 2500M outperforms ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12151300
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.86no data
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameG71M86
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date29 September 2005 (19 years ago)7 January 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data

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 cores32120
Core clock speed500 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed500 MHzno data
Number of transistors278 million378 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Wattno data
Texture fill rate12.004.800
Floating-point processing powerno data0.144 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs248

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-IIIPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s22.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model3.04.1
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 16−18
+30.8%
12−14
−30.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
World of Tanks 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 2500M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 2500M is ahead in 15 tests (47%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (53%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.56 0.34
Recency 29 September 2005 7 January 2008
Chip lithography 90 nm 55 nm

FX 2500M has a 64.7% higher aggregate performance score.

ATI Mobility FireGL V5700, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 63.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro FX 2500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility FireGL V5700 in performance tests.


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

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 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700
Mobility FireGL V5700

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.


3 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Mobility FireGL V5700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.