Quadro FX 3800M vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 980 Ti outperforms Quadro FX 3800M by 2262% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 130 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 4.18 | 0.09 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | N10E-GLM4 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 June 2015 (8 years ago) | 20 December 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
| Current price | $1195 (1.8x MSRP) | $199 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 Ti has 4544% better value for money than FX 3800M.
Technical specs
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 cores | 2816 | 128 |
| CUDA cores | 2816 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1075 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 176 billion/sec | 43.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 6,060 gflops | 422.4 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 980 Ti and Quadro FX 3800M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 6-pin + 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.5 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GTX 980 Ti outperforms Quadro FX 3800M by 2262% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 980 Ti outperforms Quadro FX 3800M by 2261% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 980 Ti outperforms Quadro FX 3800M by 617% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 101
+197%
| 34
−197%
|
| 1440p | 49
+2350%
| 2−3
−2350%
|
| 4K | 50
+2400%
| 2−3
−2400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 95−100
+870%
|
10−11
−870%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+11000%
|
1−2
−11000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 110−120
+5550%
|
2−3
−5550%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 38
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+11000%
|
1−2
−11000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 110−120
+5550%
|
2−3
−5550%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 33
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+2100%
|
4−5
−2100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 46 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 94 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 54
+1700%
|
3−4
−1700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+444%
|
9−10
−444%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 50−55
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+2433%
|
3−4
−2433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 32
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 23 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 42
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 980 Ti and FX 3800M compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Ti is 197% faster than FX 3800M in 1080p
- GTX 980 Ti is 2350% faster than FX 3800M in 1440p
- GTX 980 Ti is 2400% faster than FX 3800M in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 980 Ti is 11000% faster than the FX 3800M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 Ti surpassed FX 3800M in all 32 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 35.67 | 1.51 |
| Recency | 2 June 2015 | 20 December 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro FX 3800M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
