Quadro FX 3800 vs Radeon RX Vega 56

Place in the ranking	154	873
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	23.75	0.09
Power efficiency	11.24	1.36
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GT200B
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 56 has 26289% better value for money than FX 3800.

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	3584	192
Core clock speed	1156 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1471 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	12,500 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	108 Watt
Texture fill rate	329.5	38.40
Floating-point processing power	10.54 TFLOPS	0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	16
TMUs	224	64

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	198 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	1x 6-pin

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	HBM2	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	409.6 GB/s	51.2 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.125	N/A
CUDA	-	1.3

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.

RX Vega 56 33.85
+1504%

FX 3800 2.11

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.

RX Vega 56 13175
+1501%

FX 3800 823

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	115 +1543%	7−8 −1543%
1440p	74 +1750%	4−5 −1750%
4K	48 +2300%	2−3 −2300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.47 +3190%	114.14 −3190%
1440p	5.39 +3605%	199.75 −3605%
4K	8.31 +4706%	399.50 −4706%

RX Vega 56 has 3190% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX Vega 56 has 3605% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX Vega 56 has 4706% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1700%	4−5 −1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	88 +1660%	5−6 −1660%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1700%	4−5 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +1510%	10−11 −1510%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
Metro Exodus	96 +1820%	5−6 −1820%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Valorant	130−140 +1600%	8−9 −1600%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	156 +1633%	9−10 −1633%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1700%	4−5 −1700%
Dota 2	63 +2000%	3−4 −2000%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +1720%	5−6 −1720%
Fortnite	140 +1650%	8−9 −1650%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +1510%	10−11 −1510%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
Grand Theft Auto V	94 +1780%	5−6 −1780%
Metro Exodus	73 +1725%	4−5 −1725%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +1790%	10−11 −1790%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +1586%	7−8 −1586%
Valorant	130−140 +1600%	8−9 −1600%
World of Tanks	270−280 +1638%	16−18 −1638%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80 +1900%	4−5 −1900%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +1625%	4−5 −1625%
Cyberpunk 2077	70−75 +1700%	4−5 −1700%
Dota 2	110−120 +1750%	6−7 −1750%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +1720%	5−6 −1720%
Forza Horizon 4	160−170 +1510%	10−11 −1510%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	112 +1767%	6−7 −1767%
Valorant	130−140 +1600%	8−9 −1600%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	60−65 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +1967%	3−4 −1967%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1650%	10−11 −1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
World of Tanks	210−220 +1725%	12−14 −1725%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	67 +1575%	4−5 −1575%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +1717%	6−7 −1717%
Forza Horizon 4	95−100 +1820%	5−6 −1820%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +1767%	3−4 −1767%
Metro Exodus	74 +1750%	4−5 −1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +1800%	3−4 −1800%
Valorant	100−110 +1600%	6−7 −1600%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16	0−1
Dota 2	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
Grand Theft Auto V	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
Metro Exodus	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +1717%	6−7 −1717%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16	0−1
Dota 2	65−70 +1525%	4−5 −1525%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Fortnite	45−50 +2200%	2−3 −2200%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1733%	3−4 −1733%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Valorant	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%

This is how RX Vega 56 and FX 3800 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 56 is 1543% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 56 is 1750% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 56 is 2300% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.85	2.11
Recency	14 August 2017	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	108 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 1504.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3800, on the other hand, has 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation one.

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