HD Graphics 515 vs Quadro FX 3700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 with HD Graphics 515, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700
2008, $1,599
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.89

HD Graphics 515 outperforms FX 3700 by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11831011
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.887.78
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameG92Skylake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 January 2008 (17 years ago)1 September 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores112192
Core clock speed500 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)78 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate28.0019.20
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPS0.3072 TFLOPS
ROPs163
TMUs5624
L2 Cache64 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.1-

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.

FX 3700 0.89
HD Graphics 515 1.52
+70.8%

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.

FX 3700 371
Samples: 285
HD Graphics 515 637
+71.7%
Samples: 1470

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 HD6−7
−83.3%
11
+83.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p266.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20
+0%
20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 8
+0%
8
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 3700 and HD Graphics 515 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 515 is 83% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.89 1.52
Recency 8 January 2008 1 September 2015
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 78 Watt 15 Watt

HD Graphics 515 has a 70.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 515 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700 is a workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 515 is a notebook one.

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 3700
Quadro FX 3700
Intel HD Graphics 515
HD Graphics 515

Other comparisons

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.


4 24 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 66 votes

Rate HD Graphics 515 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3700 or HD Graphics 515, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.