Quadro FX 3800 vs GeForce GTX 1660 Super

Place in the ranking	164	869
Place by popularity	9	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	57.14	0.08
Power efficiency	18.25	1.36
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	TU116	GT200B
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	29 October 2019 (5 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1660 Super has 71325% 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	1408	192
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	108 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	38.40
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	16
TMUs	88	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	229 mm	198 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.0 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

NVENC	+	no data
Ansel	+	no data

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	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	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.

GTX 1660 Super 33.13
+1448%

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.

GTX 1660 Super 12736
+1446%

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 HD	91 +1720%	5−6 −1720%
1440p	55 +1733%	3−4 −1733%
4K	30 +2900%	1−2 −2900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.52 +6250%	159.80 −6250%
1440p	4.16 +6297%	266.33 −6297%
4K	7.63 +10367%	799.00 −10367%

GTX 1660 Super has 6250% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1660 Super has 6297% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1660 Super has 10367% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	90 +1700%	5−6 −1700%
Cyberpunk 2077	76 +1800%	4−5 −1800%
Elden Ring	93 +1450%	6−7 −1450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	92 +1740%	5−6 −1740%
Counter-Strike 2	62 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Cyberpunk 2077	59 +1867%	3−4 −1867%
Forza Horizon 4	163 +1530%	10−11 −1530%
Metro Exodus	108 +1700%	6−7 −1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80 +1500%	5−6 −1500%
Valorant	143 +1489%	9−10 −1489%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%
Counter-Strike 2	52 +1633%	3−4 −1633%
Cyberpunk 2077	49 +1533%	3−4 −1533%
Dota 2	166 +1560%	10−11 −1560%
Elden Ring	96 +1500%	6−7 −1500%
Far Cry 5	147 +1533%	9−10 −1533%
Fortnite	150−160 +1600%	9−10 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	129 +1513%	8−9 −1513%
Grand Theft Auto V	133 +1563%	8−9 −1563%
Metro Exodus	73 +1725%	4−5 −1725%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	233 +1564%	14−16 −1564%
Red Dead Redemption 2	43 +2050%	2−3 −2050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +1514%	7−8 −1514%
Valorant	77 +1825%	4−5 −1825%
World of Tanks	270−280 +1631%	16−18 −1631%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	79 +1480%	5−6 −1480%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +1500%	3−4 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	44 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Dota 2	211 +1658%	12−14 −1658%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +1680%	5−6 −1680%
Forza Horizon 4	112 +1500%	7−8 −1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +1450%	12−14 −1450%
Valorant	122 +1643%	7−8 −1643%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	62 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Elden Ring	56 +1767%	3−4 −1767%
Grand Theft Auto V	62 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	162 +1520%	10−11 −1520%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
World of Tanks	210−220 +1667%	12−14 −1667%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +1767%	3−4 −1767%
Counter-Strike 2	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +1650%	6−7 −1650%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +1500%	5−6 −1500%
Metro Exodus	67 +1575%	4−5 −1575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +1700%	3−4 −1700%
Valorant	73 +1725%	4−5 −1725%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Dota 2	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
Elden Ring	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%
Metro Exodus	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	101 +1583%	6−7 −1583%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +1900%	3−4 −1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Cyberpunk 2077	11	0−1
Dota 2	95 +1483%	6−7 −1483%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +2200%	2−3 −2200%
Fortnite	40−45 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Forza Horizon 4	44 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Valorant	34 +1600%	2−3 −1600%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and FX 3800 compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Super is 1720% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Super is 1733% faster in 1440p
GTX 1660 Super is 2900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.13	2.14
Recency	29 October 2019	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	108 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 1448.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3800, on the other hand, has 15.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super 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.