Radeon HD 7620G vs Quadro FX 3700M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700M with Radeon HD 7620G, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700M
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.02
+25.9%

FX 3700M outperforms HD 7620G by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10791137
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency1.082.57
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code nameG92Devastator
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)15 May 2012 (12 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 MHz360 MHz
Boost clock speedno data497 MHz
Number of transistors754 million1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate35.2011.93
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS0.3817 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-HEIGP

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 amount1 GBSystem 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK 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.

FX 3700M 1.02
+25.9%
HD 7620G 0.81

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
+25.3%
HD 7620G 364

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
+111%
HD 7620G 2399

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 HD45−50
+21.6%
37
−21.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p20.56no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Valorant 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+13%
21−24
−13%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Dota 2 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 3700M and HD 7620G compete in popular games:

  • FX 3700M is 22% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 3700M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3700M is ahead in 22 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.02 0.81
Recency 14 August 2008 15 May 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt

FX 3700M has a 25.9% higher aggregate performance score.

HD 7620G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 103.1% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3700M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7620G in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 7620G is a mobile workstation one.

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 Radeon HD 7620G
Radeon HD 7620G

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
2.9 21 vote

Rate Radeon HD 7620G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3700M or Radeon HD 7620G, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.