RTX A4500 Mobile vs Quadro FX 3700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3700M and RTX A4500 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A4500 Mobile outperforms FX 3700M by a whopping 3678% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1075 | 82 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 21.91 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 22 March 2022 (2 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.
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 cores | 128 | 5888 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.20 | 276.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.352 TFLOPS | 17.66 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 64 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 184 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
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 size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−4100%
|
120−130
+4100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3167%
|
95−100
+3167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−4100%
|
120−130
+4100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−13600%
|
130−140
+13600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3167%
|
95−100
+3167%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8800%
|
170−180
+8800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−618%
|
230−240
+618%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−4100%
|
120−130
+4100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−13600%
|
130−140
+13600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−969%
|
270−280
+969%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3167%
|
95−100
+3167%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−813%
|
140−150
+813%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8800%
|
170−180
+8800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 130−140 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−9900%
|
100−105
+9900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2880%
|
140−150
+2880%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−618%
|
230−240
+618%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−13600%
|
130−140
+13600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3167%
|
95−100
+3167%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−813%
|
140−150
+813%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2880%
|
140−150
+2880%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−618%
|
230−240
+618%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8800%
|
170−180
+8800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−4667%
|
280−290
+4667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−13250%
|
260−270
+13250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9900%
|
100−105
+9900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3933%
|
120−130
+3933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3900%
|
80−85
+3900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−5450%
|
110−120
+5450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−513%
|
90−95
+513%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−4083%
|
250−260
+4083%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2850%
|
55−60
+2850%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX A4500 Mobile is 13600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A4500 Mobile is ahead in 42 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (30%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 38.54 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 22 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 140 Watt |
FX 3700M has 86.7% lower power consumption.
RTX A4500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 3678.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A4500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
