Quadro FX 770M vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Quadro FX 770M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
PRO WX 2100 outperforms FX 770M by a whopping 732% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 613 | 1171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.98 | no data |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 12 | NB9P-GLM |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 March 2018 (6 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $527 |
| Current price | $343 (2.3x MSRP) | $387 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
PRO WX 2100 and FX 770M have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,248 gflops | 80 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon PRO WX 2100 and Quadro FX 770M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR2 / GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | 25.6 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 DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro FX 770M by 732% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon PRO WX 2100 outperforms Quadro FX 770M by 732% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, PRO WX 2100 surpassed FX 770M in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.74 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 21 March 2018 | 14 August 2008 |
| Cost | $149 | $527 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 35 Watt |
The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
