Radeon RX 6800M vs Quadro FX 380M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 380M with Radeon RX 6800M, including specs and performance data.
6800M outperforms 380M by a whopping 10862% 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 | 1420 | 200 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.90 | 17.07 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 31 May 2021 (5 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 | 16 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 2116 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2390 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 145 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 382.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04698 TFLOPS | 12.24 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 8 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 640 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 3 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 96 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| 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 | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.64 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| 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.
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 | 0−1 | 107 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 71 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 43 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 123 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 110 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 120−130
+4100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 130−140
+1757%
|
| Valorant | 27−30 | 200−210
+625%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14 | 270−280
+2023%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 102 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10 | 126
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 120−130
+4100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 130−140
+1757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 188
+3660%
|
| Valorant | 27−30 | 200−210
+625%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 98 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10 | 115
+1178%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 120−130
+4100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 130−140
+1757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 109
+2080%
|
| Valorant | 27−30 | 200−210
+625%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 75−80
+3750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 220−230 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 170−180
+5733%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 85−90 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 55−60
+5600%
|
4K
High
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 21−24
+340%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 85
+507%
|
| Valorant | 5−6 | 190−200
+3780%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2 | 35−40
+3800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 35−40
+1850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 128 | 128 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 143 | 143 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Far Cry 5 | 106 | 106 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 141 | 141 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Far Cry 5 | 102 | 102 |
| Far Cry 6 | 87 | 87 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112 | 112 |
| Metro Exodus | 105 | 105 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 139 | 139 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95 | 95 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
1440p
High
| Far Cry 6 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84 | 84 |
| Metro Exodus | 59 | 59 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130 | 130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 51 | 51 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100 | 100 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85 | 80−85 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Metro Exodus | 38 | 38 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60 | 60 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 82 | 82 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23 | 23 |
| Dota 2 | 95 | 95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 61 | 61 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6800M is 5733% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6800M performs better in 22 tests (40%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (60%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 31.79 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 31 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 145 Watt |
FX 380M has 83% lower power consumption.
RX 6800M, on the other hand, has a 10862% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6800M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 380M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6800M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
