Quadro FX 380M vs GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile with Quadro FX 380M, including specs and performance data.
1080 SLI Mobile outperforms 380M by a whopping 11876% 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 | 162 | 1391 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.89 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Pascal GP104 SLI | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 16 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 5120 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1556 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 14400 Million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04698 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.64 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 data | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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 | 137
+13600%
| 1−2
−13600%
|
| 4K | 95 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+19500%
|
1−2
−19500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12400%
|
1−2
−12400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+19500%
|
1−2
−19500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 150−160
+15400%
|
1−2
−15400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4433%
|
3−4
−4433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+712%
|
24−27
−712%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12400%
|
1−2
−12400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+19500%
|
1−2
−19500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2038%
|
12−14
−2038%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+1467%
|
9−10
−1467%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 150−160
+15400%
|
1−2
−15400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4433%
|
3−4
−4433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+11900%
|
1−2
−11900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+3520%
|
5−6
−3520%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+712%
|
24−27
−712%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+12400%
|
1−2
−12400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Dota 2 | 140−150
+1467%
|
9−10
−1467%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+4433%
|
3−4
−4433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 115
+2200%
|
5−6
−2200%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+712%
|
24−27
−712%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+15400%
|
1−2
−15400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+12150%
|
2−3
−12150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5733%
|
3−4
−5733%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+12150%
|
2−3
−12150%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+4100%
|
2−3
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+9700%
|
1−2
−9700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 87 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 210−220
+10600%
|
2−3
−10600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
This is how GTX 1080 SLI Mobile and FX 380M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 SLI Mobile is 13600% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1080 SLI Mobile is 10600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1080 SLI Mobile surpassed FX 380M in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.73 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 16 August 2016 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
GTX 1080 SLI Mobile has a 11875.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 380M 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.
