NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 month(s) later
- Around 20% higher core clock speed: 550 MHz vs 460 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 65 nm vs 80 nm
- 3.2x lower typical power consumption: 13 Watt vs 42 Watt
- Around 75% higher memory clock speed: 1400 MHz vs 800 MHz
- Around 43% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 50 vs 35
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 3 June 2008 vs 12 September 2007 |
Core clock speed | 550 MHz vs 460 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm vs 80 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 13 Watt vs 42 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz vs 800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 50 vs 35 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
- Around 67% higher texture fill rate: 7.36 GTexel / s vs 4.4 GTexel / s
- 4x more pipelines: 32 vs 8
- 2.6x better floating-point performance: 58.88 gflops vs 22.4 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 512 MB vs 256 MB
- Around 48% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 181 vs 122
- Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1252 vs 882
- Around 42% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1252 vs 882
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 7.36 GTexel / s vs 4.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 32 vs 8 |
Floating-point performance | 58.88 gflops vs 22.4 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 512 MB vs 256 MB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 181 vs 122 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1252 vs 882 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1252 vs 882 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 122 | 181 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 50 | 35 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 882 | 1252 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 882 | 1252 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce 9200M GS | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Tesla | Tesla |
Code name | G98 | G84 |
Launch date | 3 June 2008 | 12 September 2007 |
Place in performance rating | 1633 | 1634 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | |
Price now | $89.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 2.77 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 460 MHz |
CUDA cores | 8 | |
Floating-point performance | 22.4 gflops | 58.88 gflops |
Gigaflops | 31 | |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 80 nm |
Pipelines | 8 | 32 |
Texture fill rate | 4.4 GTexel / s | 7.36 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 13 Watt | 42 Watt |
Transistor count | 210 million | 289 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Length | 168 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 10.0 | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB / s | 25.6 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR2, GDDR3 | DDR2 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA |