Quadro FX 1800M vs Radeon R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X with Quadro FX 1800M, including specs and performance data.
R9 280X outperforms FX 1800M by a whopping 1081% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 393 | 1086 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.24 | 2.00 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GT215 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 2048 | 72 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 561 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 13.46 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 0.162 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 24 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 35.2 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 65
+1200%
| 5−6
−1200%
|
| 4K | 31
+1450%
| 2−3
−1450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60 | no data |
| 4K | 9.65 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+5167%
|
3−4
−5167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+478%
|
9−10
−478%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+272%
|
30−35
−272%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+589%
|
27−30
−589%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+469%
|
16−18
−469%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+478%
|
9−10
−478%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+586%
|
7−8
−586%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+272%
|
30−35
−272%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6000%
|
1−2
−6000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+756%
|
16−18
−756%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+743%
|
7−8
−743%
|
| God of War | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+272%
|
30−35
−272%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+1414%
|
7−8
−1414%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+1008%
|
12−14
−1008%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+4767%
|
3−4
−4767%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| God of War | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+1200%
|
6−7
−1200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| God of War | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
This is how R9 280X and FX 1800M compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 1200% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 1450% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 6700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 280X surpassed FX 1800M in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.93 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
R9 280X has a 1080.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1800M, on the other hand, has 455.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 1800M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
