Quadro FX 1800 vs GeForce GTX 680

Place in the ranking	361	1104
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.01	0.03
Power efficiency	5.12	1.21
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK104	G94
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$489

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680 has 9933% better value for money than FX 1800.

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	1536	64
Core clock speed	1006 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	1058 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,540 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	135.4	17.60
Floating-point processing power	3.25 TFLOPS	0.176 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	12
TMUs	128	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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	254 mm	198 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	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	2048 MB	768 MB
Memory bus width	256-bit GDDR5	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 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	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.2	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	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 680 14.50
+1294%

FX 1800 1.04

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 680 5576
+1301%

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	45 +1400%	3−4 −1400%
Full HD	75 +1400%	5−6 −1400%
4K	26 +2500%	1−2 −2500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	6.65 +1370%	97.80 −1370%
4K	19.19 +2448%	489.00 −2448%

GTX 680 has 1370% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 680 has 2448% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Elden Ring	40−45 +1367%	3−4 −1367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1375%	4−5 −1375%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Valorant	55−60 +1350%	4−5 −1350%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Dota 2	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Elden Ring	40−45 +1367%	3−4 −1367%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +1700%	3−4 −1700%
Fortnite	80−85 +1520%	5−6 −1520%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1375%	4−5 −1375%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 +1300%	4−5 −1300%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1400%	7−8 −1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	47 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Valorant	55−60 +1350%	4−5 −1350%
World of Tanks	224 +1300%	16−18 −1300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Dota 2	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +1700%	3−4 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1375%	4−5 −1375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1400%	7−8 −1400%
Valorant	55−60 +1350%	4−5 −1350%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Elden Ring	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +1463%	8−9 −1463%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14	0−1
World of Tanks	100−110 +1357%	7−8 −1357%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12	0−1
Far Cry 5	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Valorant	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11	0−1
Dota 2	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Elden Ring	10−11	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +1333%	3−4 −1333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Fortnite	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Valorant	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%

This is how GTX 680 and FX 1800 compete in popular games:

GTX 680 is 1400% faster in 900p
GTX 680 is 1400% faster in 1080p
GTX 680 is 2500% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.50	1.04
Recency	22 March 2012	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2048 MB	768 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	195 Watt	59 Watt

GTX 680 has a 1294.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1800, on the other hand, has 230.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680 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.