Quadro FX 1800M vs GeForce GTX 860M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 860M SLI with Quadro FX 1800M, including specs and performance data.
860M SLI outperforms 1800M by a whopping 852% 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 | 458 | 1099 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.17 | 2.01 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | no data | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 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 | 1280 | 72 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 561 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 1870 Million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.46 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.162 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 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 | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 35.2 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 46
+1050%
| 4−5
−1050%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2133%
|
3−4
−2133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+212%
|
30−35
−212%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+489%
|
27−30
−489%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2133%
|
3−4
−2133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+212%
|
30−35
−212%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+212%
|
30−35
−212%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2133%
|
3−4
−2133%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+1129%
|
7−8
−1129%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+583%
|
12−14
−583%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+4000%
|
3−4
−4000%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
This is how GTX 860M SLI and FX 1800M compete in popular games:
- GTX 860M SLI is 1050% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 860M SLI is 4900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 860M SLI surpassed FX 1800M in all 48 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.66 | 1.12 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTX 860M SLI has a 851.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1800M, on the other hand, has 166.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 860M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 860M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 1800M 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.
