Quadro P520 vs Quadro FX 4800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4800 with Quadro P520, including specs and performance data.

FX 4800
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.39

P520 outperforms FX 4800 by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking868659
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency1.2120.70
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGT200BGP108
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)23 May 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 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

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 cores192384
Core clock speed602 MHz1303 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1493 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate38.5335.83
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS1.147 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs6424

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 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s48.06 GB/s
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 DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.36.1

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 4800 2.39
Quadro P520 4.89
+105%

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 4800 1000
Quadro P520 2050
+105%

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 HD10−12
−110%
21
+110%
4K9−10
−122%
20
+122%

Cost per frame, $

1080p179.90no data
4K199.89no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
God of War 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
God of War 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 60
+0%
60
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
God of War 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 6
+0%
6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+0%
19
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 54
+0%
54
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
God of War 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
God of War 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
God of War 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how FX 4800 and Quadro P520 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P520 is 110% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P520 is 122% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.39 4.89
Recency 11 November 2008 23 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 18 Watt

Quadro P520 has a 104.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro P520 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 4800
Quadro FX 4800
NVIDIA Quadro P520
Quadro P520

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.


4 68 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 110 votes

Rate Quadro P520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 4800 or Quadro P520, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.