Quadro 2000 vs Quadro FX 3800

Place in the ranking	858	830
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	0.12
Power efficiency	1.37	2.75
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT200B	GF106
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)	24 December 2010 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	$599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 2000 has 100% better value for money than FX 3800.

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	192
Core clock speed	600 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	62 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	20.00
Floating-point processing power	0.4623 TFLOPS	0.48 TFLOPS
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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	198 mm	178 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	650 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.2 GB/s	41.6 GB/s

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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.3	2.1

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.

FX 3800 2.13

Quadro 2000 2.45
+15%

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 823

Quadro 2000 946
+14.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.13	2.45
Recency	30 March 2009	24 December 2010
Chip lithography	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	62 Watt

Quadro 2000 has a 15% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 74.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

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