Radeon 760M vs Quadro FX 3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800
2009, $799
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
1.97

760M outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 557% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking939425
Place by popularitynot in top-10096
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency1.4066.32
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameGT200BPhoenix
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date30 March 2009 (16 years ago)31 January 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores192512
Core clock speed600 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2599 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate38.4083.17
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs6432
Ray Tracing Coresno data8
L0 Cacheno data128 KB
L1 Cacheno data128 KB
L2 Cache128 KB2 MB

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-slotIGP
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

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortMotherboard Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.3-

Synthetic benchmarks

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 1.97
Radeon 760M 12.94
+557%

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
Samples: 810
Radeon 760M 5413
+558%
Samples: 2010

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 HD4−5
−625%
29
+625%
1440p2−3
−800%
18
+800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p199.75no data
1440p399.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 105
+0%
105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 26
+0%
26
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18
+0%
18
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 36
+0%
36
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 38
+0%
38
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+0%
23
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how FX 3800 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 760M is 625% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 760M is 800% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.97 12.94
Recency 30 March 2009 31 January 2024
Chip lithography 55 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 556.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1275% more advanced lithography process, and 620% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 760M is a desktop 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
AMD Radeon 760M
Radeon 760M

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.


3.1 51 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 457 votes

Rate Radeon 760M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3800 or Radeon 760M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.