Quadro FX 1700 vs Radeon RX 5600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600 XT with Quadro FX 1700, including specs and performance data.
RX 5600 XT outperforms FX 1700 by a whopping 6930% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 157 | 1255 |
| Place by popularity | 97 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 48.41 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.94 | 0.81 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | G84 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 12 September 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 5600 XT and FX 1700 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 2304 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | 460 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 42 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 7.360 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | 0.05888 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 144 | 16 |
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 4.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 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.
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.
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 HD | 106
+10500%
| 1−2
−10500%
|
| 1440p | 61 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 36 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.63
+26457%
| 699.00
−26457%
|
| 1440p | 4.57 | no data |
| 4K | 7.75 | no data |
- RX 5600 XT has 26457% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
+7900%
|
4−5
−7900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 109
+10800%
|
1−2
−10800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 257
+8467%
|
3−4
−8467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 148
+7300%
|
2−3
−7300%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+7250%
|
2−3
−7250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 185
+9150%
|
2−3
−9150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 104
+10300%
|
1−2
−10300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 84
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+13000%
|
1−2
−13000%
|
| Valorant | 275
+9067%
|
3−4
−9067%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+13400%
|
1−2
−13400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+9100%
|
3−4
−9100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 185
+9150%
|
2−3
−9150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+13400%
|
1−2
−13400%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+7250%
|
2−3
−7250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
+8550%
|
2−3
−8550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 91
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+12500%
|
1−2
−12500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 81
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+13000%
|
1−2
−13000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140
+13900%
|
1−2
−13900%
|
| Valorant | 272
+8967%
|
3−4
−8967%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11800%
|
1−2
−11800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 168
+8300%
|
2−3
−8300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+12500%
|
1−2
−12500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 138
+13700%
|
1−2
−13700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 49 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+13000%
|
1−2
−13000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Valorant | 148
+7300%
|
2−3
−7300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+7250%
|
2−3
−7250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80
+7900%
|
1−2
−7900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+7433%
|
3−4
−7433%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8650%
|
2−3
−8650%
|
| Valorant | 252
+8300%
|
3−4
−8300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+10800%
|
1−2
−10800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 36 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 30 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 214
+7033%
|
3−4
−7033%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 99
+9800%
|
1−2
−9800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 0−1 |
This is how RX 5600 XT and FX 1700 compete in popular games:
- RX 5600 XT is 10500% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.23 | 0.43 |
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 12 September 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 42 Watt |
RX 5600 XT has a 6930.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1700, on the other hand, has 257.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 5600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1700 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600 XT is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1700 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
