Quadro 5000M vs Quadro FX 3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Quadro 5000M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.11

5000M outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking879625
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.09no data
Power efficiency1.363.69
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGT200BGF100
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)27 July 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores192320
Core clock speed600 MHz405 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million3,100 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate38.4016.20
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.5184 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6440

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 GB1792 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s76.8 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
CUDA1.3+

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.

FX 3800 2.11
Quadro 5000M 5.30
+151%

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 821
Quadro 5000M 2059
+151%

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
World of Tanks 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.11 5.30
Recency 30 March 2009 27 July 2010
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 1792 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro 5000M has a 151.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 75% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 5000M 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 5000M 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 5000M
Quadro 5000M

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
5 2 votes

Rate Quadro 5000M 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 5000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.