FirePro M4100 vs Quadro FX 3700M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700M and FirePro M4100, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3700M
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.16

M4100 outperforms FX 3700M by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1074809
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency1.09no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameG92Mars
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)16 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$925 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 cores128384
Core clock speed550 MHz670 MHz
Number of transistors754 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate35.2016.08
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS0.5146 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs6424

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).

Laptop sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 3.0 x8

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s64 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+-

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.

FX 3700M 1.16
FirePro M4100 2.69
+132%

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 3700M 456
FirePro M4100 1059
+132%

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
−175%
11
+175%

Cost per frame, $

1080p231.25no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Fortnite 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Valorant 30−35
−33.3%
40−45
+33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−92.3%
50−55
+92.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Dota 2 16−18
−62.5%
24−27
+62.5%
Fortnite 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 7−8
Metro Exodus 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Valorant 30−35
−33.3%
40−45
+33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Dota 2 16−18
−62.5%
24−27
+62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Valorant 30−35
−33.3%
40−45
+33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
−217%
18−20
+217%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Valorant 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
−117%
12−14
+117%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Dota 2 0−1 7−8
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1

This is how FX 3700M and FirePro M4100 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro M4100 is 175% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro M4100 is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FirePro M4100 is ahead in 46 tests (82%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.16 2.69
Recency 14 August 2008 16 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm

FirePro M4100 has a 131.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro M4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

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 3700M
Quadro FX 3700M
AMD FirePro M4100
FirePro M4100

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.


3 2 votes

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

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

Rate FirePro M4100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3700M or FirePro M4100, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.