FirePro 2460 vs Quadro FX 1700M
FirePro 2460
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 1700M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro 2460 is positioned at rank 353 and the Quadro FX 1700M is on rank 129, so the Quadro FX 1700M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 2460
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 1700M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 1700M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro 2460.
| Insight | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 1700M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro 2460 and Quadro FX 1700M
FirePro 2460
The FirePro 2460 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 13 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 170 points. Launch price was $599.
Quadro FX 1700M
The Quadro FX 1700M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 173 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro 2460 scores 170 and the Quadro FX 1700M reaches 173 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro 2460 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro FX 1700M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 512 (FirePro 2460) vs 240 (Quadro FX 1700M). Raw compute: 0.768 TFLOPS (FirePro 2460) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1700M).
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 170 | 173+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 512+113% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.768 TFLOPS+23% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 80+150% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11 (FirePro 2460) vs 11.1 (10_0) (Quadro FX 1700M). OpenGL: 4.4 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 2.
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.4+33% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 4+100% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Decoder: UVD 2.3 vs PureVideo HD. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (FirePro 2460) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro FX 1700M).
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD 2.3 | — |
| Decoder | UVD 2.3 | PureVideo HD |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro 2460 draws 75W versus the Quadro FX 1700M's 189W — a 86.4% difference. The FirePro 2460 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro 2460) vs 350W (Quadro FX 1700M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-60% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 170mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-24% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 2.3+156% | 0.9 |
Value Analysis
The FirePro 2460 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2008).
| Feature | FirePro 2460 | Quadro FX 1700M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $180 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | — |
| Codename | Cape Verde | GT200B |
| Release | June 13 2012 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #732 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro 2460 and Quadro FX 1700M
