Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Quadro FX 3700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
FX 3000 FX 3000G FX 3400 FX 3450 FX 3500 FX 3700 FX 3800 FX 4700 X2 Plex 2100 D4 VX 200
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

FX 3700
2008, $1,599
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.90

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms FX 3700 by a whopping 184% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FX 3700 FX 3700
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1197877
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.89no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameG92Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2008 (18 years ago)14 January 2014 (12 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

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores112384
Core clock speed500 MHz720 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)78 Wattno data
Texture fill rate28.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs56no data
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 x16no data
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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
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-Videono data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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 HD4−5
−250%
14
+250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p399.75no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 3700 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 250% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 51 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.90 2.56
Recency 8 January 2008 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 184% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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 Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
FX 1800 Quadro FX 1800
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
R5 430 OEM Radeon R5 430 OEM
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
vs
FX 4600 Quadro FX 4600
Tesla S1070 Tesla S1070
vs
VX 200 200
Tesla S1070 Tesla S1070
vs
RTX 2080 Ti 2080 Ti
FX 4700 X2 NVIDIA FX 4700 X2
vs
HD Graphics 2000 2000
FX 4700 X2 NVIDIA FX 4700 X2
vs
RTX 3090 3090
FX 3700 NVIDIA FX 3700
vs
HD Graphics 4000 4000
FX 3700 NVIDIA FX 3700
vs
GTX 280M 280M
NVS 290 NVIDIA NVS 290
vs
NVS 120M 120M
NVS 290 NVIDIA NVS 290
vs
R6 M335DX M335DX
NVS 290 NVIDIA NVS 290
vs
RTX 6000 Passive 6000 Passive
NVS 290 NVIDIA NVS 290
vs
9600 GT Green Edition 9600 GT Green Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 25 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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 Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.