Quadro FX 1800 vs Quadro M3000M

Place in the ranking	359	1102
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	13.35	1.20
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM204	G94
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$489

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1,024	64
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	59 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	17.60
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	0.176 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	12
TMUs	64	32

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 size	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	198 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	768 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	38.4 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
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	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.2	1.1

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. 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.

M3000M 14.61
+1318%

FX 1800 1.03

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.

M3000M 5630
+1318%

FX 1800 397

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	61 +1425%	4−5 −1425%
4K	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	122.25
4K	no data	489.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24
+2100%

1−2

−2100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +1433%	3−4 −1433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1450%	6−7 −1450%
Hitman 3	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1360%	5−6 −1360%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +1500%	3−4 −1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +1433%	3−4 −1433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1450%	6−7 −1450%
Hitman 3	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1360%	5−6 −1360%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +1500%	3−4 −1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	90 +1400%	6−7 −1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1450%	6−7 −1450%
Hitman 3	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1360%	5−6 −1360%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +1467%	3−4 −1467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40
+1850%

2−3

−1850%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Far Cry 5	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +1380%	5−6 −1380%
Hitman 3	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +1367%	6−7 −1367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+2200%

1−2

−2200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12	0−1
Hitman 3	10−11	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +1320%	5−6 −1320%
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

0−1

This is how M3000M and FX 1800 compete in popular games:

M3000M is 1425% faster in 1080p
M3000M is 2600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.61	1.03
Recency	18 August 2015	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	768 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	59 Watt

M3000M has a 1318.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1800, on the other hand, has 27.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.