Quadro FX 3800 vs Arc Graphics 140V

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc Graphics 140V with Quadro FX 3800, including specs and performance data.

Arc Graphics 140V
16 GB LPDDR5x
13.29
+521%

Arc Graphics 140V outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 521% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking385866
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.08
Power efficiencyno data1.36
ArchitectureXe² (2024)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameLunar Lake iGPUGT200B
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release dateno data30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores8192
Core clock speedno data600 MHz
Boost clock speed2050 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology3 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data108 Watt
Texture fill rateno data38.40
Floating-point processing powerno data0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data64

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeLPDDR5xGDDR3
Maximum RAM amount16 GB1 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data51.2 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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_211.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-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.

Arc Graphics 140V 13.29
+521%
FX 3800 2.14

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.

Arc Graphics 140V 5120
+521%
FX 3800 824

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 HD40
+567%
6−7
−567%
1440p20
+567%
3−4
−567%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data133.17
1440pno data266.33

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.29 2.14
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 3 nm 55 nm

Arc Graphics 140V has a 521% higher aggregate performance score, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1733.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Graphics 140V is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc Graphics 140V is a notebook 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.

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.


Intel Arc Graphics 140V
Arc Graphics 140V
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Quadro FX 3800

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.


4.3 6 votes

Rate Arc Graphics 140V on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 50 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800 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.