
Quadro FX 1700 vs Quadro FX 4500

Quadro FX 1700
Popular choices:

Quadro FX 4500
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. The Quadro FX 1700 is positioned at rank #395 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 1700
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 4500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 1700.
| Insight | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+5.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro FX 4500 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 4500 holds the technical lead. Priced at $500 (vs $500), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 5.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+5.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 Quadro FX 1700 and Quadro FX 4500

Quadro FX 1700
The Quadro FX 1700 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: 216 points. Launch price was $3,499.

Quadro FX 4500
The Quadro FX 4500 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: 227 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro FX 1700 scores 216 versus the Quadro FX 4500's 227 — the Quadro FX 4500 leads by 5.1%. The Quadro FX 1700 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Quadro FX 4500 uses Tesla 2.0, both on a 55 nm process. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 1700) vs 240 (Quadro FX 4500). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1700) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 4500).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 216 | 227+5% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 10_0 (Quadro FX 1700) vs 9_0c (Quadro FX 4500). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10_0+11% | 9_0c |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 1700 draws 189W versus the Quadro FX 4500's 189W — a 0% difference. The Quadro FX 4500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 1700) vs 350W (Quadro FX 4500). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 230mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 230mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 1.1 | 1.2+9% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 1700 launched at $699 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the Quadro FX 4500 launched at $0 and now averages $500. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.4 (Quadro FX 1700) vs 0.5 (Quadro FX 4500) — the Quadro FX 4500 offers 25% better value.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700 | Quadro FX 4500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $699 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.4 | 0.5+25% |
| Codename | GT200B | GT200B |
| Release | November 11 2008 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #815 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















