Quadro FX 4000 vs Quadro FX 3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 and Quadro FX 4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.14
+723%

FX 3800 outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 723% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8661350
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.08no data
Power efficiency1.360.13
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGT200BNV40
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)1 April 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 $2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 3800 and FX 4000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores192no data
Core clock speed600 MHz375 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million222 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate38.404.500
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPSno data
ROPs168
TMUs6412

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16AGP 8x
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin2x Molex

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s32 GB/s

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 DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
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
+723%
FX 4000 0.26

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
+716%
FX 4000 101

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 0.26
Recency 30 March 2009 1 April 2004
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 142 Watt

FX 3800 has a 723.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 136.4% more advanced lithography process, and 31.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 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
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000
Quadro FX 4000

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 50 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 4000 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.