Radeon Pro 580 vs Quadro FX 3800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Radeon Pro 580, including specs and performance data.
Pro 580 outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 841% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 939 | 327 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.40 | 9.50 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 30 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 5 June 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 192 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 2 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 198 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.3 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 1.97 | 18.54 |
| Recency | 30 March 2009 | 5 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 150 Watt |
FX 3800 has 38.9% lower power consumption.
Pro 580, on the other hand, has a 841.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 580 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 Pro 580 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
