NVS 5200M vs Quadro FX 3800M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800M and NVS 5200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3800M
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 100 Watt
1.50
+12.8%

FX 3800M outperforms NVS 5200M by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9741023
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.043.70
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG92GF117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)

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 cores12896
Core clock speed675 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors754 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate43.2010.00
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPS0.24 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs6416

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s14.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API 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
CUDA++

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 3800M 1.50
+12.8%
NVS 5200M 1.33

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 3800M 580
+13.3%
NVS 5200M 512

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

FX 3800M 6779
+58.8%
NVS 5200M 4268

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 HD34
+278%
9
−278%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3%
30−35
−3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3%
30−35
−3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3%
30−35
−3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 3800M and NVS 5200M compete in popular games:

  • FX 3800M is 278% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FX 3800M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3800M is ahead in 20 tests (42%)
  • there's a draw in 28 tests (58%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.50 1.33
Recency 14 August 2008 1 June 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 25 Watt

FX 3800M has a 12.8% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 5200M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3800M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5200M in performance tests.


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 3800M
Quadro FX 3800M
NVIDIA NVS 5200M
NVS 5200M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4 6 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 144 votes

Rate NVS 5200M 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.