Quadro CX vs ATI Radeon HD 4830
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4830 with Quadro CX, including specs and performance data.
CX outperforms HD 4830 by a small 9% 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 | 938 | 915 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 1.69 | 1.17 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 October 2008 (17 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $130 | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
ATI HD 4830 has 1150% better value for money than Quadro CX.
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 | 640 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.40 | 38.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.736 TFLOPS | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 192 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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | 76.8 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 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 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.3 |
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 | 2.08 | 2.27 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1536 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 150 Watt |
ATI HD 4830 has 58% lower power consumption.
Quadro CX, on the other hand, has a 9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 4830 and Quadro CX.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4830 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro CX 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.
