UHD Graphics 770 vs Quadro FX 3800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3800M with UHD Graphics 770, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 770 outperforms 3800M by a whopping 329% 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 | 1072 | 658 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.03 | 29.40 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 12.2 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Raptor Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (17 years ago) | 27 September 2022 (3 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 | 128 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.20 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS | 0.8448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
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) | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 34
+88.9%
| 18
−88.9%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−333%
| 13
+333%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−120%
|
11
+120%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−225%
|
24−27
+225%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−100%
|
65−70
+100%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−220%
|
95−100
+220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−153%
|
43
+153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−225%
|
24−27
+225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 9 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−157%
|
18
+157%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−100%
|
65−70
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−135%
|
40
+135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−225%
|
24−27
+225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−100%
|
65−70
+100%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−775%
|
35−40
+775%
|
| Palworld | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−389%
|
40−45
+389%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−171%
|
35−40
+171%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−867%
|
55−60
+867%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how FX 3800M and UHD Graphics 770 compete in popular games:
- FX 3800M is 89% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 770 is 333% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 770 is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 770 performs better in 46 tests (77%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.33 | 5.70 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 27 September 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics 770 has a 329% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 567% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3800M is a mobile workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 770 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.
