NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro 4000M 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- 2.6x more pipelines: 336 vs 128
- Around 81% better floating-point performance: 638.4 gflops vs 352.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 56% higher memory clock speed: 2500 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 2.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1270 vs 456
- 3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 265 vs 88
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 22 February 2011 vs 14 August 2008 |
Pipelines | 336 vs 128 |
Floating-point performance | 638.4 gflops vs 352.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1270 vs 456 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 265 vs 88 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
- Around 16% higher core clock speed: 550 MHz vs 475 MHz
- Around 32% higher texture fill rate: 35.2 GTexel / s vs 26.6 GTexel / s
- Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3315 vs 1254
- 2.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3315 vs 1254
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 550 MHz vs 475 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 35.2 GTexel / s vs 26.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3315 vs 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3315 vs 1254 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
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 Quadro 4000M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1270 | 456 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 265 | 88 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5212 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 21.42 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 738.724 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.068 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 33.126 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 81.823 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1413 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 865 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1254 | 3315 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1413 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 865 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1254 | 3315 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
Code name | GF104 | G92 |
Launch date | 22 February 2011 | 14 August 2008 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $925 |
Place in performance rating | 1300 | 1303 |
Price now | $111.99 | $925 |
Type | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Value for money (0-100) | 19.30 | 1.12 |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 475 MHz | 550 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 638.4 gflops | 352.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 336 | 128 |
Texture fill rate | 26.6 GTexel / s | 35.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,950 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
Laptop size | large | large |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB / s | 51.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
PowerMizer 8.0 |