Home GPU Comparison NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Passive

NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Passive

We compared two Professional market GPUs: 512MB VRAM Quadro FX 1700 and 24GB VRAM Quadro RTX 6000 Passive to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.

Main Differences

NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700 's Advantages
Lower TDP (42W vs 260W)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Passive 's Advantages
Released 10 years and 11 months late
Boost Clock1560MHz
More VRAM (24GB vs 512GB)
Larger VRAM bandwidth (672.0GB/s vs 25.60GB/s)
4576 additional rendering cores

Score

Benchmark

FP32 (float)
Quadro FX 1700
0.059 TFLOPS
Quadro RTX 6000 Passive +24272%
14.38 TFLOPS
VS

Graphics Card

Sep 2007
Release Date
Aug 2018
Quadro FX
Generation
Quadro
Professional
Type
Professional
PCIe 1.0 x16
Bus Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16

Clock Speeds

-
Base Clock
1305 MHz
-
Boost Clock
1560 MHz
400 MHz
Memory Clock
1750 MHz

Memory

512MB
Memory Size
24GB
DDR2
Memory Type
GDDR6
256bit
Memory Bus
384bit
25.60GB/s
Bandwidth
672.0GB/s

Render Config

-
-
-
4
SM Count
72
32
Shading Units
4608
16
TMUs
288
8
ROPs
96
-
Tensor Cores
576
-
RT Cores
72
-
L1 Cache
64 KB (per SM)
64 KB
L2 Cache
6 MB
-
-
-

Theoretical Performance

3.680 GPixel/s
Pixel Rate
149.8 GPixel/s
7.360 GTexel/s
Texture Rate
449.3 GTexel/s
-
FP16 (half)
28.75 TFLOPS
58.88 GFLOPS
FP32 (float)
14.38 TFLOPS
-
FP64 (double)
449.3 GFLOPS

Board Design

42W
TDP
260W
200 W
Suggested PSU
600 W
2x DVI 1x S-Video
Outputs
No outputs
None
Power Connectors
1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

Graphics Processor

G84
GPU Name
TU102
G84-875-A2
GPU Variant
TU102-875-A1
Tesla
Architecture
Turing
TSMC
Foundry
TSMC
80 nm
Process Size
12 nm
0.289 billion
Transistors
18.6 billion
169 mm²
Die Size
754 mm²

Graphics Features

11.1 (10_0)
DirectX
12 Ultimate (12_2)
3.3
OpenGL
4.6
1.1
OpenCL
3.0
N/A
Vulkan
1.3
1.1
CUDA
7.5
4.0
Shader Model
6.6

Related GPU Comparisons

Related News

© 2024 - TopCPU.net   Contact Us Privacy Policy