Quadro FX 3800M vs M1000M

Place in performance ranking	497	928
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.83	0.09
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	GM107	N10E-GLM4
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	2 October 2015 (8 years ago)	20 December 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$200.89	no data
Current price	$706 (3.5x MSRP)	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M1000M has 822% better value for money than FX 3800M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	512	128
Core clock speed	993 MHz	675 MHz
Boost clock speed	1072 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.78	43.20
Floating-point performance	1,017 gflops	422.4 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro M1000M and Quadro FX 3800M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	large
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	64 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.0	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.0	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

M1000M 7.44
+393%

FX 3800M 1.51

M1000M outperforms FX 3800M by 393% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

M1000M 2879
+392%

FX 3800M 585

M1000M outperforms FX 3800M by 392% in Passmark.

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 HD	39 +14.7%	34 −14.7%
4K	13 +550%	2−3 −550%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+200%

4−5

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Battlefield 5	24−27	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Hitman 3	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Battlefield 5	24−27	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Hitman 3	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Battlefield 5	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +175%	4−5 −175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Hitman 3	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 +600%	1−2 −600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

This is how M1000M and FX 3800M compete in popular games:

M1000M is 14.7% faster than FX 3800M in 1080p
M1000M is 550% faster than FX 3800M in 4K

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M1000M is 2500% faster than the FX 3800M.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, M1000M surpassed FX 3800M in all 32 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.44	1.51
Recency	2 October 2015	20 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	100 Watt