Quadro FX 1800 vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB with Quadro FX 1800, including specs and performance data.

GTX 460 768MB
4.38
+321%

GTX 460 768MB outperforms FX 1800 by a whopping 321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking6311062
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.05
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameno dataG94
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release dateno data30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$489
Current price$149 $132 (0.3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores33664
Core clock speed675 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistorsno data505 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data59 Watt
Texture fill rateno data17.60
Floating-point performanceno data176 gflops

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data768 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz1600 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data38.4 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno data1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkanno dataN/A
CUDAno data1.1

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 HD51
+325%
12−14
−325%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+317%
12−14
−317%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+300%
20−22
−300%
Hitman 3 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+313%
21−24
−313%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+309%
10−12
−309%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+300%
20−22
−300%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+317%
12−14
−317%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+300%
20−22
−300%
Hitman 3 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+313%
21−24
−313%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+309%
10−12
−309%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+300%
20−22
−300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+300%
20−22
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+313%
21−24
−313%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+300%
20−22
−300%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+309%
10−12
−309%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+286%
7−8
−286%
Hitman 3 35−40
+289%
9−10
−289%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+300%
10−11
−300%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Hitman 3 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%

This is how GTX 460 768MB and FX 1800 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 460 768MB is 325% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.38 1.04

The GeForce GTX 460 768MB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 768MB is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800
Quadro FX 1800

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 91 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 460 768MB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 117 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.