FirePro W4170M vs Quadro FX 2800M

Place in performance ranking	1048	770
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.05	0.13
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code name	NB10-GLM3	Mars XTX?
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 December 2009 (14 years ago)	16 November 2012 (11 years ago)
Current price	$140	$495

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

W4170M has 160% better value for money than FX 2800M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	96	384
Core clock speed	600 MHz	850 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	900 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	28.80	21.60
Floating-point performance	288 gflops	691.2 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 2800M and FirePro W4170M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	medium sized
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

Memory

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	4000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	64 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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 Connectors

No outputs

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration

no data

API support

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 2800M 1.07

W4170M 2.67
+150%

FirePro W4170M outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 150% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

FX 2800M 416

W4170M 1036
+149%

FirePro W4170M outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 149% in Passmark.

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

31
+40.9%

−40.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Hitman 3	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	4−5
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Hitman 3	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	4−5
Metro Exodus	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Hitman 3	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2