Quadro FX 3700M vs Radeon PRO WX 3100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 3100 with Quadro FX 3700M, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 3100
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
6.66
+464%

PRO WX 3100 outperforms FX 3700M by a whopping 464% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5641064
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.120.02
Power efficiency7.031.08
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameLexaG92
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date12 June 2017 (7 years ago)14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $925

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO WX 3100 has 25500% better value for money than FX 3700M.

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 cores512128
Core clock speed925 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0135.20
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.352 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3264

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-HE
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s51.2 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

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.

PRO WX 3100 6.66
+464%
FX 3700M 1.18

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.

PRO WX 3100 2565
+463%
FX 3700M 456

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.

PRO WX 3100 11702
+132%
FX 3700M 5053

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 HD13
+550%
2−3
−550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p15.31462.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hitman 3 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+179%
14−16
−179%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+62.5%
30−35
−62.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Battlefield 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hitman 3 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+179%
14−16
−179%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+90.9%
10−12
−90.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+62.5%
30−35
−62.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hitman 3 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+179%
14−16
−179%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+175%
8−9
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+62.5%
30−35
−62.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Hitman 3 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

This is how PRO WX 3100 and FX 3700M compete in popular games:

  • PRO WX 3100 is 550% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the PRO WX 3100 is 4200% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 3700M is 57% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • PRO WX 3100 is ahead in 46 tests (98%)
  • FX 3700M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.66 1.18
Recency 12 June 2017 14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 75 Watt

PRO WX 3100 has a 464.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 3100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 3100 is a workstation card while Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100
Radeon PRO WX 3100
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
Quadro FX 3700M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 54 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 2 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.