Quadro FX 880M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Quadro FX 880M, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
2017
15 Watt
4.50
+676%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms FX 880M by a whopping 676% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6561204
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Power efficiency20.771.15
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeGT216
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date26 October 2017 (7 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 years ago)

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 cores51248
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data8.800
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Interfaceno dataMXM-A (3.0)

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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.28 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_111.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.2

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 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 4.50
+676%
FX 880M 0.58

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 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 1737
+679%
FX 880M 223

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 10294
+290%
FX 880M 2639

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 HD17
−11.8%
19
+11.8%
4K10
+900%
1−2
−900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9
+200%
3−4
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15
+275%
4−5
−275%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Battlefield 5 18
+800%
2−3
−800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry 5 18
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Forza Horizon 4 58
+729%
7−8
−729%
Hitman 3 9
+80%
5−6
−80%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+173%
10−12
−173%
Metro Exodus 22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+217%
6−7
−217%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65
+117%
30−33
−117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30
+650%
4−5
−650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 52
+767%
6−7
−767%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+173%
10−12
−173%
Metro Exodus 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+167%
6−7
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+210%
10−11
−210%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55
+83.3%
30−33
−83.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+100%
4−5
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 15
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
−25%
10−11
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+900%
1−2
−900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and FX 880M compete in popular games:

  • FX 880M is 12% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 900% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 2700% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 880M is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • FX 880M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.50 0.58
Recency 26 October 2017 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 675.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation one.


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

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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 1380 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 41 vote

Rate Quadro FX 880M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.