Quadro FX 3700M vs Quadro K1100M

Place in the ranking	797	1064
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.10	0.02
Power efficiency	4.34	1.09
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK107	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109.94	$925

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K1100M has 5400% better value for money than FX 3700M.

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	384	128
Core clock speed	706 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.59	35.20
Floating-point processing power	0.5422 TFLOPS	0.352 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	64

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	medium sized	large
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-HE

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	44.8 GB/s	51.2 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/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.

K1100M 2.83
+138%

FX 3700M 1.19

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.

K1100M 1088
+139%

FX 3700M 456

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.

K1100M 8992
+78%

FX 3700M 5053

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 HD

17
+143%

7−8

−143%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.47
+1943%

132.14

−1943%

K1100M has 1943% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Dota 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1
Far Cry 5	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Fortnite	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Valorant	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	50−55 +96.2%	24−27 −96.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Dota 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +100%	12−14 −100%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	0−1
Elden Ring	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 +186%	7−8 −186%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	18−20 +217%	6−7 −217%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Valorant	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Elden Ring	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

This is how K1100M and FX 3700M compete in popular games:

K1100M is 143% 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 K1100M is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K1100M is ahead in 37 tests (90%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	1.19
Recency	23 July 2013	14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	75 Watt

K1100M has a 137.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1100M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.