Quadro FX 3700 vs GeForce GTX 260M
Quadro FX 3700
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 260M
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 3700 is positioned at rank 401 and the GeForce GTX 260M is on rank 134, so the GeForce GTX 260M 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 3700
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 260M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 260M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 3700.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3700 | GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%) |
| 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 (+100%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 260M 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 3700 and GeForce GTX 260M
Quadro FX 3700
The Quadro FX 3700 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: 372 points. Launch price was $3,499.
GeForce GTX 260M
The GeForce GTX 260M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 576 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 182W. Manufactured using 65 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 382 points. Launch price was $449.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3700 scores 372 and the GeForce GTX 260M reaches 382 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3700 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 260M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 55 nm vs 65 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3700) vs 192 (GeForce GTX 260M). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3700) vs 0.4769 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 260M).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3700 | GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 372 | 382+3% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 65 nm |
| Shading Units | 240+25% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS+30% | 0.4769 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+14% | 28 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+14% | 224 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3700 | GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro FX 3700 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 260M has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 260M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Quadro FX 3700) vs 224 KB (GeForce GTX 260M) — the Quadro FX 3700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3700 | GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+14% | 224 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10_0 (Quadro FX 3700) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 260M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3700 | GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10_0 | 11.1 (10_0)+11% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3700 draws 189W versus the GeForce GTX 260M's 182W — a 3.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 260M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3700) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 260M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3700 | GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 182W-4% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 2.0 | 2.1+5% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3700 and GeForce GTX 260M
