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

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

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

FX 3700
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.98

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms FX 3700 by a whopping 180% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking1074768
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameG92Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2008 (16 years ago)14 January 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 no data
Current price$256 (0.2x MSRP)no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 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 performance280 gflopsno 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 speed1600 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Videono data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics 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/Ano data
CUDA1.1no data

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 HD5−6
−180%
14
+180%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
Hitman 3 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
Hitman 3 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−200%
18−20
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Hitman 3 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 2−3
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 1−2

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 1−2
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 2−3
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 2−3
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

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

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 180% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.98 2.74
Recency 8 January 2008 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm

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.


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

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.


4.2 20 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 21 vote

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 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.