NVIDIA GeForce 920M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 920M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M 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, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 920M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 73% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 550 MHz
- 3x more pipelines: 384 vs 128
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- Around 57% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 717 vs 456
- Around 34% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 118 vs 88
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3315
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3315
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 vs 14 August 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 550 MHz |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 128 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 717 vs 456 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 118 vs 88 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3315 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3315 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
- 2.8x more texture fill rate: 35.2 GTexel / s vs 12.4 GTexel / s
- Around 18% better floating-point performance: 352.0 gflops vs 297.6 gflops
| Texture fill rate | 35.2 GTexel / s vs 12.4 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 352.0 gflops vs 297.6 gflops |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 920M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 717 | 456 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 118 | 88 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3726 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.358 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 157.606 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.843 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.374 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 40.443 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1598 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3636 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3315 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1598 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3636 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3315 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 326 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 920M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | GK208B | G92 |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 | 14 August 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1304 | 1301 |
| Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $925 | |
| Price now | $925 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 1.12 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 297.6 gflops | 352.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 128 |
| Texture fill rate | 12.4 GTexel / s | 35.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-HE |
| Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
| PowerMizer 8.0 | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce 920M with others
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 2400
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3700M
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 740M
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R5 230
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R5 M240
NVIDIAGeForce 920M vs
AMDRadeon R7 M445
