Radeon PRO W7700 vs Quadro FX 2800M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

FX 2800M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.07

Radeon PRO W7700 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by a whopping 4991% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking105240
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0525.87
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)RDNA 3.0 (2022)
GPU code nameNB10-GLM3Navi 32
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date1 December 2009 (14 years ago)13 November 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999
Current price$140 $999 (1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7700 has 51640% better value for money than FX 2800M.

Detailed specifications

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 cores963072
Core clock speed600 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistors754 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate28.80499.2
Floating-point performance288 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 2800M and Radeon PRO W7700 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz18 GB/s
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s576.0 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs4x DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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
PRO W7700 54.47
+4991%

Radeon PRO W7700 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 4991% based on our aggregate 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 415
PRO W7700 21048
+4972%

Radeon PRO W7700 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 4972% 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 HD31
−4900%
1550−1600
+4900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−4900%
300−310
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Hitman 3 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−4900%
600−650
+4900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−4900%
450−500
+4900%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−4900%
300−310
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Hitman 3 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−4900%
600−650
+4900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−4900%
450−500
+4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4900%
150−160
+4900%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−4900%
300−310
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−4900%
600−650
+4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 6−7
−4900%
300−310
+4900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−4900%
200−210
+4900%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−4900%
100−105
+4900%

This is how FX 2800M and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 4900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.07 54.47
Recency 1 December 2009 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 190 Watt

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.


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 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2800M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 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.