Quadro FX 1300 vs Radeon R9 380X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 380X with Quadro FX 1300, including specs and performance data.
R9 380X outperforms FX 1300 by a whopping 18225% 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 | 395 | 1526 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.93 | 0.11 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | Antigua | NV38 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 19 November 2015 (10 years ago) | 9 August 2004 (21 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 380X and FX 1300 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 cores | 2048 | no data |
| Compute units | 32 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 970 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 135 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 124.2 | 2.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.973 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | DDR |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 970 MHz | 275 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 182.4 GB/s | 17.6 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 14.66 | 0.08 |
| Recency | 19 November 2015 | 9 August 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 55 Watt |
R9 380X has a 18225% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1300, on the other hand, has 245.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 380X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1300 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 380X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 1300 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
