ATI Radeon HD 3850 AGP vs FirePro D300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D300 with Radeon HD 3850 AGP, including specs and performance data.

FirePro D300
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.48
+812%

D300 outperforms HD 3850 AGP by a whopping 812% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5141166
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.891.07
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code namePitcairnRV670
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date18 January 2014 (12 years ago)3 January 2008 (18 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1280320
Core clock speed850 MHz668 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million666 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate68.0010.69
Floating-point processing power2.176 TFLOPS0.4275 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8016
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB256 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 8x
Length242 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz828 MHz
Memory bandwidth162.6 GB/s52.99 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.48 1.04
Recency 18 January 2014 3 January 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 75 Watt

FirePro D300 has a 812% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 3850 AGP, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.

The FirePro D300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 AGP in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro D300 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 3850 AGP is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 37 votes

Rate FirePro D300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 38 votes

Rate Radeon HD 3850 AGP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro D300 or Radeon HD 3850 AGP, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.