Home GPU Comparison NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Passive

NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Passive

We compared two Professional market GPUs: 512MB VRAM Quadro FX 1700M and 48GB VRAM Quadro RTX 8000 Passive to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.

Main Differences

NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700M 's Advantages
Lower TDP (50W vs 260W)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Passive 's Advantages
Released 9 years and 10 months late
Boost Clock1620MHz
More VRAM (48GB vs 512GB)
Larger VRAM bandwidth (672.0GB/s vs 25.60GB/s)
4576 additional rendering cores

Score

Benchmark

FP32 (float)
Quadro FX 1700M
0.099 TFLOPS
Quadro RTX 8000 Passive +14980%
14.93 TFLOPS
VS

Graphics Card

Oct 2008
Release Date
Aug 2018
Quadro FX Mobile
Generation
Quadro
Professional
Type
Professional
MXM-II
Bus Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16

Clock Speeds

-
Base Clock
1230 MHz
-
Boost Clock
1620 MHz
800 MHz
Memory Clock
1750 MHz

Memory

512MB
Memory Size
48GB
GDDR3
Memory Type
GDDR6
128bit
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)
32 KB
L2 Cache
6 MB
-
-
-

Theoretical Performance

5.000 GPixel/s
Pixel Rate
155.5 GPixel/s
10.00 GTexel/s
Texture Rate
466.6 GTexel/s
-
FP16 (half)
29.86 TFLOPS
99.20 GFLOPS
FP32 (float)
14.93 TFLOPS
-
FP64 (double)
466.6 GFLOPS

Board Design

50W
TDP
260W
-
Suggested PSU
600 W
No outputs
Outputs
No outputs
-
Power Connectors
1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

Graphics Processor

G96
GPU Name
TU102
NB9P-GLM
GPU Variant
TU102-875-A1
Tesla
Architecture
Turing
UMC
Foundry
TSMC
65 nm
Process Size
12 nm
0.314 billion
Transistors
18.6 billion
144 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