Radeon Pro SSG vs Quadro FX 2700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2700M with Radeon Pro SSG, including specs and performance data.
Pro SSG outperforms 2700M by a whopping 2881% 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 | 1193 | 249 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.50 |
| Power efficiency | 1.04 | 7.77 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | G94 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (17 years ago) | 26 July 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.95 | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro SSG has 2400% 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 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | 8.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 4 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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR3 | HBM |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2775%
|
230−240
+2775%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−2733%
|
850−900
+2733%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−2726%
|
650−700
+2726%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−2757%
|
400−450
+2757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2775%
|
230−240
+2775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−2733%
|
850−900
+2733%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−2757%
|
400−450
+2757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2775%
|
230−240
+2775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2733%
|
170−180
+2733%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−2733%
|
850−900
+2733%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−2700%
|
140−150
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2789%
|
260−270
+2789%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2757%
|
400−450
+2757%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−2650%
|
110−120
+2650%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.88 | 26.23 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 26 July 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 260 Watt |
FX 2700M has 300% lower power consumption.
Pro SSG, on the other hand, has a 2881% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro SSG 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 Radeon Pro SSG 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.
