Quadro K1000M vs Quadro FX 3800

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.14
+5.9%

FX 3800 outperforms K1000M by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking863885
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.060.37
Power efficiency1.383.13
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGT200BGK107
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$799 $119.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K1000M has 517% 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 cores192192
Core clock speed600 MHz850 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate38.4013.60
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs6416

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
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s28.8 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 DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/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
+5.9%
K1000M 2.02

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
+5.9%
K1000M 778

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:

900p9−10
+0%
9
+0%
Full HD18−20
+5.9%
17
−5.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p44.397.05

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 3800 and K1000M compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 900p
  • FX 3800 is 6% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 2.02
Recency 30 March 2009 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 45 Watt

FX 3800 has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score.

K1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 3800 and Quadro K1000M.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation card while Quadro K1000M 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Quadro FX 3800
NVIDIA Quadro K1000M
Quadro K1000M

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.


3.1 49 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 78 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M 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.