Radeon 680M vs Quadro FX 3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Radeon 680M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.14

680M outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 305% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking870501
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.09no data
Power efficiency1.3711.96
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT200BRembrandt+
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)3 January 2023 (2 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 cores192768
Core clock speed600 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate38.40105.6
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6448
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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. 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 2.14
Radeon 680M 8.67
+305%

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
Radeon 680M 3334
+305%

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 HD9−10
−311%
37
+311%
1440p4−5
−350%
18
+350%
4K2−3
−400%
10
+400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p88.78no data
1440p199.75no data
4K399.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Metro Exodus 39
+0%
39
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 161
+0%
161
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30
+0%
30
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 146
+0%
146
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 17
+0%
17
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2
+0%
2
+0%
Dota 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how FX 3800 and Radeon 680M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 680M is 311% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 680M is 350% faster in 1440p
  • Radeon 680M is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 8.67
Recency 30 March 2009 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 55 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 50 Watt

Radeon 680M has a 305.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 816.7% more advanced lithography process, and 116% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 680M 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 Radeon 680M is a notebook one.


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

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
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

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
4.2 988 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.