Quadro FX 2700M vs Radeon HD 6730M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6730M with Quadro FX 2700M, including specs and performance data.
HD 6730M outperforms 2700M by a considerable 41% 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 | 1080 | 1186 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 2.72 | 1.04 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 480 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 12.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | 0.1272 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 64 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 | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 799 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 51.14 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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:
| 900p | 17
+41.7%
| 12−14
−41.7%
|
| Full HD | 23
+43.8%
| 16−18
−43.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.25 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 6730M and FX 2700M compete in popular games:
- HD 6730M is 42% faster in 900p
- HD 6730M is 44% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Escape from Tarkov, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6730M is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6730M performs better in 31 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.23 | 0.87 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 14 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 65 Watt |
HD 6730M has a 41.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6730M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6730M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
