Quadro 4000M vs Quadro FX 3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Quadro 4000M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.09

4000M outperforms FX 3800 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking878748
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.090.38
Power efficiency1.362.28
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGT200BGF104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Quadro 4000M has 322% 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 cores192336
Core clock speed600 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate38.4026.60
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6456

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s80 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.32.1

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.

FX 3800 2.09
Quadro 4000M 3.25
+55.5%

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 822
Quadro 4000M 1278
+55.5%

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 HD45−50
−57.8%
71
+57.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p17.76
−181%
6.32
+181%
  • Quadro 4000M has 181% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how FX 3800 and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 4000M is 58% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.09 3.25
Recency 30 March 2009 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro 4000M has a 55.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 4000M 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 Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Quadro FX 3800
NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 50 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3800 or Quadro 4000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.