ATI FirePro M7740 vs Quadro P5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5200 and FirePro M7740, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P5200 outperforms M7740 by a whopping 1307% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 230 | 931 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.38 | 2.53 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | M97 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 4 August 2009 (16 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 cores | 2560 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1556 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1746 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 826 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 279.4 | 20.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.94 TFLOPS | 0.832 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 160 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 128 KB |
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-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 846 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 54.14 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 120
+1400%
| 8−9
−1400%
|
| 4K | 48
+1500%
| 3−4
−1500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+3900%
|
4−5
−3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+2060%
|
5−6
−2060%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+3900%
|
4−5
−3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+1650%
|
6−7
−1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+909%
|
10−12
−909%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+2125%
|
4−5
−2125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+927%
|
10−12
−927%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+372%
|
35−40
−372%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+2060%
|
5−6
−2060%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+3900%
|
4−5
−3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+561%
|
40−45
−561%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+1650%
|
6−7
−1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+909%
|
10−12
−909%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+2125%
|
4−5
−2125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+2425%
|
4−5
−2425%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+2033%
|
3−4
−2033%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+927%
|
10−12
−927%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118
+1375%
|
8−9
−1375%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+372%
|
35−40
−372%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+2060%
|
5−6
−2060%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+495%
|
21−24
−495%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+1650%
|
6−7
−1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1740%
|
5−6
−1740%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+909%
|
10−12
−909%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+927%
|
10−12
−927%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+372%
|
35−40
−372%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1378%
|
9−10
−1378%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1180%
|
5−6
−1180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+1321%
|
14−16
−1321%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+775%
|
20−22
−775%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+1479%
|
14−16
−1479%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1440%
|
5−6
−1440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
+1550%
|
4−5
−1550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+2100%
|
3−4
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+1400%
|
5−6
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+2233%
|
3−4
−2233%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+1600%
|
10−11
−1600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+2125%
|
4−5
−2125%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
This is how Quadro P5200 and ATI M7740 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5200 is 1400% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5200 is 1500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5200 is 4900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P5200 surpassed ATI M7740 in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.72 | 1.97 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 4 August 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
Quadro P5200 has a 1307.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
ATI M7740, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M7740 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.
