Quadro FX 1700 vs Radeon R9 380

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking335not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.02no data
Power efficiency5.80no data
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameAntiguaG84
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)12 September 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores179232
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data460 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt42 Watt
Texture fill rate108.67.360
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS0.05888 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs11216

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length221 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/s25.6 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 380 6134
+3289%
FX 1700 181

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 June 2015 12 September 2007
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 42 Watt

R9 380 has an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1700, on the other hand, has 352.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 380 and Quadro FX 1700. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1700 is a 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 R9 380
Radeon R9 380
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
Quadro FX 1700

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.


4.1 789 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 24 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1700 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.