Quadro FX 3700M vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2800M and Quadro FX 3700M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
FX 3700M outperforms FX 2800M by a moderate 10% 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 | 1129 | 1110 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 0.98 | 1.07 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | G92 | G92 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 December 2009 (15 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $925 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 96 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 35.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.288 TFLOPS | 0.352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 51.2 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 31
+3.3%
| 30−35
−3.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 30.83 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−4%
|
24−27
+4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how FX 2800M and FX 3700M compete in popular games:
- FX 2800M is 3% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FX 3700M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 3700M is ahead in 10 tests (25%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (75%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 1.14 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 14 August 2008 |
FX 2800M has an age advantage of 1 year.
FX 3700M, on the other hand, has a 9.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 2800M and Quadro FX 3700M.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
