Quadro FX 380 LP vs Quadro RTX A6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX A6000 and Quadro FX 380 LP, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX A6000
2020, $4,649
48 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
54.57
+15950%

RTX A6000 outperforms 380 LP by a whopping 15950% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking551353
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.87no data
Power efficiency13.980.93
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2025)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGA102GT218
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date5 October 2020 (5 years ago)1 December 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,649 $169

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RTX A6000 and FX 380 LP have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores1075216
Core clock speed1410 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1800 MHzno data
Number of transistors28,300 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate604.84.400
Floating-point processing power38.71 TFLOPS0.044 TFLOPS
ROPs1124
TMUs3368
Tensor Cores336no data
Ray Tracing Cores84no data
L1 Cache10.5 MBno data
L2 Cache6 MB32 KB

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 4.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors8-pin EPSNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount48 GB512 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth768.0 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR+-

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort 1.4a1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.74.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA8.61.2
DLSS+-

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.

RTX A6000 54.57
+15950%
FX 380 LP 0.34

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.

RTX A6000 22822
+15749%
Samples: 435
FX 380 LP 144
Samples: 59

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 HD1580−1
1440p1230−1
4K1060−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p29.42no data
1440p37.80no data
4K43.86no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 280−290
+28000%
1−2
−28000%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 130−140 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 160−170 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 280−290
+28000%
1−2
−28000%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Far Cry 5 52 0−1
Fortnite 240−250
+24500%
1−2
−24500%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+21200%
1−2
−21200%
Forza Horizon 5 160−170
+16800%
1−2
−16800%
Hogwarts Legacy 130−140 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17300%
1−2
−17300%
Valorant 300−350
+30100%
1−2
−30100%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 160−170 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 280−290
+28000%
1−2
−28000%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+27800%
1−2
−27800%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Dota 2 139 0−1
Far Cry 5 53 0−1
Fortnite 240−250
+24500%
1−2
−24500%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+21200%
1−2
−21200%
Forza Horizon 5 160−170
+16800%
1−2
−16800%
Grand Theft Auto V 128 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 130−140 0−1
Metro Exodus 98 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17300%
1−2
−17300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 307
+30600%
1−2
−30600%
Valorant 300−350
+30100%
1−2
−30100%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Dota 2 131 0−1
Far Cry 5 52 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+21200%
1−2
−21200%
Hogwarts Legacy 130−140 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17300%
1−2
−17300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 180
+17900%
1−2
−17900%
Valorant 300−350
+30100%
1−2
−30100%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 240−250
+24500%
1−2
−24500%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 150−160 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450
+20250%
2−3
−20250%
Grand Theft Auto V 96 0−1
Metro Exodus 84 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17400%
1−2
−17400%
Valorant 300−350
+17250%
2−3
−17250%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Far Cry 5 52 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+17400%
1−2
−17400%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 70−75 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 155 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 70 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 146 0−1
Valorant 300−350
+31000%
1−2
−31000%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 128 0−1
Far Cry 5 50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 120−130 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 54.57 0.34
Recency 5 October 2020 1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount 48 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 8 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 28 Watt

RTX A6000 has a 15950% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

FX 380 LP, on the other hand, has 971.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380 LP 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 RTX A6000
Quadro RTX A6000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 380 LP
Quadro FX 380 LP

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.


3.1 514 votes

Rate Quadro RTX A6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 7 votes

Rate Quadro FX 380 LP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX A6000 or Quadro FX 380 LP, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.