UHD Graphics 605 vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
UHD Graphics 605 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by a small 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 1052 | 1031 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 0.53 |
Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Gen. 9 Apollo Lake (2016−2017) |
GPU code name | NB10-GLM3 | Gemini Lake |
Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Release date | 1 December 2009 (14 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
Current price | $140 | $458 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
UHD Graphics 605 has 960% better value for money than FX 2800M.
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 cores | 96 | 18 |
Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 300 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 750 MHz |
Number of transistors | 754 million | 189 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 5 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 14.40 |
Floating-point performance | 288 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro FX 2800M and UHD Graphics 605 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | large | no data |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR4 / LPDDR4 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.103 |
CUDA | + | no data |
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.
UHD Graphics 605 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 9% 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%
UHD Graphics 605 outperforms Quadro FX 2800M by 10% 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%
Quadro FX 2800M outperforms UHD Graphics 605 by 167% 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 | 31
+138%
| 13
−138%
|
1440p | 21−24
−14.3%
| 24
+14.3%
|
4K | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5
−20%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1
−300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FX 2800M and UHD Graphics 605 compete in popular games:
- FX 2800M is 138% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 605 is 14% faster in 1440p
- UHD Graphics 605 is 25% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2800M is 300% faster than the UHD Graphics 605.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 605 is 25% faster than the FX 2800M.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 2800M is ahead in 2 tests (5%)
- UHD Graphics 605 is ahead in 3 tests (8%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (87%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.07 | 1.17 |
Recency | 1 December 2009 | 11 December 2017 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 5 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 2800M and UHD Graphics 605.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics 605 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.