Tesla T4 vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2800M with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
T4 outperforms 2800M by a whopping 2268% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1172 | 267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.02 | 25.90 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G92 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 December 2009 (16 years ago) | 13 September 2018 (7 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 cores | 96 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.288 TFLOPS | 8.141 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 48 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 4 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 31
−2158%
| 700−750
+2158%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−2150%
|
90−95
+2150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−2150%
|
90−95
+2150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2233%
|
210−220
+2233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2158%
|
700−750
+2158%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−2100%
|
550−600
+2100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−2043%
|
300−310
+2043%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−2150%
|
90−95
+2150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2233%
|
210−220
+2233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2158%
|
700−750
+2158%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−2043%
|
300−310
+2043%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2233%
|
210−220
+2233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2158%
|
700−750
+2158%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−2150%
|
90−95
+2150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2264%
|
260−270
+2264%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
This is how FX 2800M and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:
- Tesla T4 is 2158% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 23.44 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
Tesla T4 has a 2268% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 442% more advanced lithography process, and 7% lower power consumption.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Tesla T4 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
