FirePro W4100 vs Quadro FX 3800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 and FirePro W4100, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.14

W4100 outperforms FX 3800 by an impressive 85% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking869701
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.08no data
Power efficiency1.365.45
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGT200BCape Verde
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)13 August 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 no data

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 cores192512
Core clock speed600 MHz630 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate38.4020.16
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.6451 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs6432

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 supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length198 mm171 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Form factorno datalow profile / half length
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s72 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort
Dual-link DVI support-+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.3-

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.

FX 3800 2.14
FirePro W4100 3.96
+85%

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.

FX 3800 824
FirePro W4100 1521
+84.6%

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 HD9−10
−88.9%
17
+88.9%
4K1−2
−200%
3
+200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p88.78no data
4K799.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Elden Ring 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Elden Ring 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
World of Tanks 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Elden Ring 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
World of Tanks 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how FX 3800 and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W4100 is 89% faster in 1080p
  • FirePro W4100 is 200% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 3.96
Recency 30 March 2009 13 August 2014
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 50 Watt

FirePro W4100 has a 85% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 116% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.


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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Quadro FX 3800
AMD FirePro W4100
FirePro W4100

Other comparisons

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 50 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 73 votes

Rate FirePro W4100 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.