Quadro FX 3700M vs Radeon RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 with Quadro FX 3700M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 5 outperforms FX 3700M by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 661 | 1075 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 21.18 | 1.08 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $925 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 320 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 35.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-HE |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/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.
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.
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 | 19
+375%
| 4−5
−375%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 231.25 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 52
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+72.7%
|
30−35
−72.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
+92.3%
|
24−27
−92.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+72.7%
|
30−35
−72.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+72.7%
|
30−35
−72.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and FX 3700M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 5 is 375% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 5 is 2500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 5 surpassed FX 3700M in all 42 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.99 | 1.02 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 14 August 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has a 291.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 828.6% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook 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.
