Quadro FX 3700 vs Radeon HD 7870

Place in the ranking	405	1112
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.00	0.01
Power efficiency	4.70	0.86
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	G92
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	5 March 2012 (12 years ago)	8 January 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$349	$1,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD 7870 has 29900% better value for money than FX 3700.

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	1280	112
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	78 Watt
Texture fill rate	80.00	28.00
Floating-point processing power	2.56 TFLOPS	0.28 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	80	56

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	241 mm	267 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 6-pin

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	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	153.6 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	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. 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.

HD 7870 12.01
+1126%

FX 3700 0.98

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.

HD 7870 4628
+1128%

FX 3700 377

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	84 +1300%	6−7 −1300%
Full HD	69 +1280%	5−6 −1280%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

5.06

319.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20
+1800%

1−2

−1800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +1233%	6−7 −1233%
Hitman 3	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +1180%	5−6 −1180%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1280%	5−6 −1280%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1167%	3−4 −1167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +1233%	6−7 −1233%
Hitman 3	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +1180%	5−6 −1180%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1280%	5−6 −1280%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +1233%	6−7 −1233%
Hitman 3	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +1180%	5−6 −1180%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1280%	5−6 −1280%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+1550%

2−3

−1550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1350%	4−5 −1350%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1150%	6−7 −1150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22
+1900%

1−2

−1900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +1300%	4−5 −1300%
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

0−1

This is how HD 7870 and FX 3700 compete in popular games:

HD 7870 is 1300% faster in 900p
HD 7870 is 1280% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.01	0.98
Recency	5 March 2012	8 January 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	78 Watt

HD 7870 has a 1125.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3700, on the other hand, has 124.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 7870 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7870 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 3700 is a workstation one.

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