NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2 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 GT 750M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 57% higher core clock speed: 941 MHz vs 600 MHz
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 384 vs 2x 128
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 4.5x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 226 Watt
- 2.5x more memory clock speed: 4012 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- Around 97% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1330 vs 676
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 9 January 2013 vs 18 April 2008 |
Core clock speed | 941 MHz vs 600 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 vs 2x 128 |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 226 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 4012 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1330 vs 676 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
- 7.7x more texture fill rate: 2x 38.4 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 30.94 GTexel / s
- Around 3% better floating-point performance: 2x 384.0 gflops vs 742.7 gflops
- 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 509 vs 244
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 4196 vs 3334
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 4196 vs 3334
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 2x 38.4 GTexel / s billion / sec vs 30.94 GTexel / s |
Floating-point performance | 2x 384.0 gflops vs 742.7 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 509 vs 244 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 4196 vs 3334 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 4196 vs 3334 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1330 | 676 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 244 | 509 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4267 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.67 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 251.09 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.144 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.872 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 13.423 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2351 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3520 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3334 | 4196 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2351 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3520 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3334 | 4196 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 461 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
Code name | GK107 | G92 |
Launch date | 9 January 2013 | 18 April 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 1141 | 490 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 967 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 941 MHz | 600 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 742.7 gflops | 2x 384.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 2x 128 |
Texture fill rate | 30.94 GTexel / s | 2x 38.4 GTexel / s billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 226 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | ||
HDMI | ||
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Length | 267 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2x 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 64.19 GB / s | 2x 51.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2x 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4012 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Standard memory configuration | DDR3 / GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Blu-Ray 3D Support | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus |