GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile vs Quadro FX 550

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 550 with GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 550
2006
128 MB GDDR3, 30 Watt
0.14

RTX 2070 Super Mobile outperforms FX 550 by a whopping 22314% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1428138
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.3721.73
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV43TU104B
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date20 April 2006 (18 years ago)2 April 2020 (4 years ago)

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 coresno data2560
Core clock speed360 MHz1140 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1380 MHz
Number of transistors146 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology110 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt115 Watt
Texture fill rate2.880220.8
Floating-point processing powerno data7.066 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8160
Tensor Coresno data320
Ray Tracing Coresno data40

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount128 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s448.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)4.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.140
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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 HD0−1119
1440p-0−176
4K-0−145

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Battlefield 5 166
+0%
166
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Fortnite 164
+0%
164
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Battlefield 5 152
+0%
152
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 130
+0%
130
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Fortnite 156
+0%
156
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 129
+0%
129
+0%
Metro Exodus 87
+0%
87
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 163
+0%
163
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 141
+0%
141
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 124
+0%
124
+0%
Far Cry 5 105
+0%
105
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 87
+0%
87
+0%
Valorant 163
+0%
163
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 129
+0%
129
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 54
+0%
54
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110
+0%
110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 93
+0%
93
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 59
+0%
59
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 48
+0%
48
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.14 31.38
Recency 20 April 2006 2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 110 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 115 Watt

FX 550 has 283.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 2070 Super Mobile, on the other hand, has a 22314.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 816.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 550 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 550 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile is a notebook 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 550
Quadro FX 550
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile
GeForce RTX 2070 Super

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.


3.3 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 395 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 550 or GeForce RTX 2070 Super Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.