UHD Graphics 630 vs Quadro FX 3700

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 with UHD Graphics 630, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.93

UHD Graphics 630 outperforms FX 3700 by a whopping 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1124771
Place by popularitynot in top-10035
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.8514.18
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameG92Comet Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2008 (17 years ago)1 October 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores112184
Core clock speed500 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1150 MHz
Number of transistors754 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)78 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate28.0026.45
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPS0.4232 TFLOPS
ROPs163
TMUs5623

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 x16PCIe 3.0 x1
Length267 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
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

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 outputs

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 compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.1.103
CUDA1.1-

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. 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 3700 0.93
UHD Graphics 630 2.97
+219%

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 372
UHD Graphics 630 1192
+220%

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
−275%
15
+275%
1440p3−4
−233%
10
+233%
4K2−3
−250%
7
+250%

Cost per frame, $

1080p399.75no data
1440p533.00no data
4K799.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 8
+0%
8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 8
+0%
8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 8
+0%
8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 33
+0%
33
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+0%
5
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
World of Tanks 29
+0%
29
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
World of Tanks 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 3700 and UHD Graphics 630 compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 630 is 275% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics 630 is 233% faster in 1440p
  • UHD Graphics 630 is 250% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 2.97
Recency 8 January 2008 1 October 2017
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 78 Watt 15 Watt

UHD Graphics 630 has a 219.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 420% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 630 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 UHD Graphics 630 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
Intel UHD Graphics 630
UHD Graphics 630

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.


4.1 21 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4063 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 630 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.