Quadro NVS 285 vs Quadro FX 5800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5800 and Quadro NVS 285, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 5800
2008
4 GB GDDR3, 189 Watt
2.74
+2640%

5800 outperforms 285 by a whopping 2640% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8031498
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency1.170.45
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGT200BNV44 A2
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)6 June 2006 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,499 $27.99

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 cores240no data
Core clock speed610 MHz275 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million75 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)189 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate48.801.100
Floating-point processing power0.6221 TFLOPSno data
ROPs322
TMUs804
L2 Cache256 KBno data

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 1.0 x16
Length267 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount4 GB128 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/s8 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video1x DMS-59

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
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 5800 2.74
+2640%
NVS 285 0.10

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 5800 1213
+2721%
Samples: 141
NVS 285 43
Samples: 146

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 2.74 0.10
Recency 11 November 2008 6 June 2006
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 189 Watt 18 Watt

FX 5800 has a 2640% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 285, on the other hand, has 950% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 5800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 285 in performance tests.

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 5800
Quadro FX 5800
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 285
Quadro NVS 285

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.


3.9 27 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 6 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 5800 or Quadro NVS 285, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.