Quadro FX 3700M vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7870 XT HD 7950 HD 7950 Mac Edition HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2 HD 7970 HD 7970 GHz Edition HD 8950 OEM HD 8970 OEM R9 280 R9 280X R9 280X2
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1500M 1600M 1700M 1800M 2500M 2700M 2800M 3500M 3600M 3700M 3800M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with Quadro FX 3700M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014, $279
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
13.22
+1147%

R9 280 outperforms 3700M by a whopping 1147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 280 R9 280
FX 3700M FX 3700M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4191141
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.690.01
Power efficiency5.091.09
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTahitiG92
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (12 years ago)14 August 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 $925

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

R9 280 has 46800% better value for money than FX 3700M.

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 cores1792128
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate104.535.20
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS0.352 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11264
L1 Cache448 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KB64 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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-HE
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno 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 amount3 GB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s51.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-+

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.

R9 280 13.22
+1147%
FX 3700M 1.06

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.

R9 280 5526
+1145%
Samples: 3770
FX 3700M 444
Samples: 178

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

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 38 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.22 1.06
Recency 4 March 2014 14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 75 Watt

R9 280 has a 1147% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3700M, on the other hand, has 167% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 3700M 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.

R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 690 GeForce GTX 690
FX 3700M Quadro FX 3700M
vs
FirePro M2000 FirePro M2000
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 680 GeForce GTX 680
R5 230 AMD Radeon R5 230
vs
Tesla V100 FHHL Tesla V100 FHHL
R5 230 AMD Radeon R5 230
vs
R8 M435DX R8 M435DX
R5 230 AMD Radeon R5 230
vs
Tesla PG503-216 Tesla PG503-216
R5 230 AMD Radeon R5 230
vs
CMP 100HX-210 CMP 100HX-210
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
K4000M Quadro K4000M
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
ATI 9000 PRO Radeon 9000 PRO
R9 280 AMD Radeon R9 280
vs
RX 6500M RX 6500M
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
GTX 285M SLI GTX 285M SLI
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
R9 M370X Mac Edition R9 M370X Mac Edition
R7 250X AMD Radeon R7 250X
vs
GTX 950M Mac Edition GTX 950M Mac Edition

Community ratings

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

3.6 444 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 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

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or Quadro FX 3700M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.