Quadro FX 1700M vs FirePro 2460
Quadro FX 1700M
Popular choices:
FirePro 2460
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 Quadro FX 1700M is positioned at rank 129 and the FirePro 2460 is on rank 353, 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 Quadro FX 1700M
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 2460
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 | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 Quadro FX 1700M and FirePro 2460
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 1700M scores 173 and the FirePro 2460 reaches 170 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 1700M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the FirePro 2460 uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 1700M) vs 512 (FirePro 2460). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1700M) vs 0.768 TFLOPS (FirePro 2460).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 173+2% | 170 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 512+113% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.768 TFLOPS+23% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+150% | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 11.1 (10_0) (Quadro FX 1700M) vs 11 (FirePro 2460). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4+33% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Decoder: PureVideo HD vs UVD 2.3. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro FX 1700M) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (FirePro 2460).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | — | UVD 2.3 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD | UVD 2.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 1700M draws 189W versus the FirePro 2460's 75W — a 86.4% difference. The FirePro 2460 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 1700M) vs 350W (FirePro 2460). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 75W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 170mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 65°C-24% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.9 | 2.3+156% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro 2460 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1700M | FirePro 2460 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $180 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $10 |
| Codename | GT200B | Cape Verde |
| Release | November 11 2008 | June 13 2012 |
| Ranking | #815 | #732 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 1700M and FirePro 2460
