Quadro FX 1800 vs GeForce GTX 470M

Place in the ranking	621	1095
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	4.67	1.21
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GF104	G94
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$489

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	288	64
Core clock speed	535 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.68	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.6163 TFLOPS	0.176 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	12
TMUs	48	32

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	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	198 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
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	1536 MB	768 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	60.0 GB/s	38.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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 Connectors

No outputs

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 470M 5.06
+391%

FX 1800 1.03

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.

GTX 470M 1953
+391%

FX 1800 398

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:

900p	34 +467%	6−7 −467%
Full HD	48 +433%	9−10 −433%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

54.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+700%

1−2

−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +422%	9−10 −422%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +422%	9−10 −422%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +422%	9−10 −422%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+550%

2−3
−550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+800%

1−2

−800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

This is how GTX 470M and FX 1800 compete in popular games:

GTX 470M is 467% faster in 900p
GTX 470M is 433% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.06	1.03
Recency	3 September 2010	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	768 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	59 Watt

GTX 470M has a 391.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1800, on the other hand, has 27.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 470M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 470M is a notebook 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.