GeForce GT 750M vs Quadro FX 3800

Place in the ranking	868	724
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	no data
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GT200B	N14P-GT
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	no data

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	192	384
Core clock speed	600 MHz	967 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	30.94
Floating-point processing power	0.4623 gflops	0.7427 gflops
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	64	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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	198 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Standard memory configuration	no data	DDR3/GDDR5
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1600 MHz	2000 - 5000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.2 GB/s	64.19 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	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
LVDS signal support	no data	Up to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display support	no data	Up to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
HDMI	-	+
HDCP content protection	-	+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	-	+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support	-	+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	-	+
Optimus	-	+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 API
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	1.3	+

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.

FX 3800 2.11

GT 750M 3.45
+63.5%

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.

FX 3800 815

GT 750M 1332
+63.4%

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

12−14

−75%

21
+75%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30 +0%	30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +0%	5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how FX 3800 and GT 750M compete in popular games:

GT 750M is 75% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.11	3.45
Recency	30 March 2009	1 April 2013
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	50 Watt

GT 750M has a 63.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 116% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 750M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation card while GeForce GT 750M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.