ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 vs Quadro FX 3700M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700M with Mobility Radeon HD 5470, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700M
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.18
+93.4%

FX 3700M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 5470 by an impressive 93% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10561193
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.092.82
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameG92Park
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$925 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores12880
Core clock speed550 MHz750 MHz
Number of transistors754 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate35.206.000
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS0.12 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs648

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 2.0 x16

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 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s25.6 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 compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.34.4
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/AN/A
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. 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 3700M 1.18
+93.4%
ATI Mobility HD 5470 0.61

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
+93.2%
ATI Mobility HD 5470 236

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

FX 3700M 5053
+298%
ATI Mobility HD 5470 1270

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 3700M is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3700M is ahead in 27 tests (77%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 0.61
Recency 14 August 2008 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

FX 3700M has a 93.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

ATI Mobility HD 5470, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3700M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5470 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation card while Mobility Radeon HD 5470 is a mobile workstation 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 3700M
Quadro FX 3700M
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470
Mobility Radeon HD 5470

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.


3 2 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 245 votes

Rate Mobility Radeon HD 5470 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.