GeForce 8800 Ultra vs ATI Radeon HD 3850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3850 and GeForce 8800 Ultra, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8800 Ultra outperforms HD 3850 by a substantial 38% 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 | 1182 | 1026 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 0.99 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | RV670 | G80 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 November 2007 (18 years ago) | 2 May 2007 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | $829 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
ATI HD 3850 has 50% better value for money than 8800 Ultra.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 320 | 612 |
| Core clock speed | 668 MHz | 612 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 681 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 171 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.69 | 39.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4275 TFLOPS | 0.3871 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 96 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 208 mm | 270 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 830 MHz | 1080 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 53.12 GB/s | 103.7 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.96 | 1.54 |
| Recency | 19 November 2007 | 2 May 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 171 Watt |
ATI HD 3850 has an age advantage of 6 months, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 39% more advanced lithography process, and 56% lower power consumption.
8800 Ultra, on the other hand, has a 38% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce 8800 Ultra is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
