Quadro FX 1700M vs Radeon HD 7690M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7690M with Quadro FX 1700M, including specs and performance data.
HD 7690M outperforms FX 1700M by a whopping 393% 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 | 908 | 1299 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.70 | 0.63 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Thames | G96 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 December 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 October 2008 (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 | 480 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 725 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | 0.0992 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
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-II |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 25.6 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 compatibility
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 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.
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.
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 | 25
+400%
| 5−6
−400%
|
| Full HD | 18
+500%
| 3−4
−500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| God of War | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how HD 7690M and FX 1700M compete in popular games:
- HD 7690M is 400% faster in 900p
- HD 7690M is 500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7690M is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 7690M surpassed FX 1700M in all 30 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.02 | 0.41 |
| Recency | 25 December 2011 | 1 October 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 7690M has a 392.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7690M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7690M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 1700M 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.
