RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs Quadro FX 2700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2700M with RTX 6000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms 2700M by a whopping 7754% 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 | 1181 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 3.28 |
| Power efficiency | 1.03 | 17.57 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | G94 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (17 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.95 | $6,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 16300% better value for money than FX 2700M.
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 | 48 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | 1,423 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | 91.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 192 |
| TMUs | 24 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 142 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 17.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 96 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 8.9 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 2−3
−9250%
| 187
+9250%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−8050%
| 163
+8050%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−10900%
| 110
+10900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.98
−37.5%
| 36.36
+37.5%
|
| 1440p | 49.98
−19.8%
| 41.71
+19.8%
|
| 4K | 99.95
−61.7%
| 61.81
+61.7%
|
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 37% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 20% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 62% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−8700%
|
170−180
+8700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−8700%
|
170−180
+8700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−12900%
|
130
+12900%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 300−350 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4550%
|
270−280
+4550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 200−210 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1247%
|
400−450
+1247%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1109%
|
270−280
+1109%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−8700%
|
170−180
+8700%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−7400%
|
1050−1100
+7400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−12500%
|
126
+12500%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 300−350 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4550%
|
270−280
+4550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 200−210 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−11300%
|
114
+11300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−8050%
|
489
+8050%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1247%
|
400−450
+1247%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−8700%
|
170−180
+8700%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−7400%
|
1050−1100
+7400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−11700%
|
118
+11700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4550%
|
270−280
+4550%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3140%
|
160−170
+3140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4233%
|
260
+4233%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1247%
|
400−450
+1247%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 300−350 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−7133%
|
210−220
+7133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−10220%
|
500−550
+10220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 118 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−8033%
|
240−250
+8033%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−9300%
|
90−95
+9300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−21800%
|
219
+21800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1020%
|
160−170
+1020%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−6500%
|
300−350
+6500%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+0%
|
184
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how FX 2700M and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 9250% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 8050% faster in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 10900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 21800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation performs better in 35 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.83 | 65.19 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
FX 2700M has 361.5% lower power consumption.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 7754.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation graphics card while RTX 6000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
