ATI Radeon 9800 PRO MAXX vs Quadro FX 3800

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking861not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Power efficiency1.38no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)R300 (2005−2008)
GPU code nameGT200BR350
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)no data (2024 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 cores192no data
Core clock speed600 MHz380 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million117 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Watt94 Watt
Texture fill rate38.403.040
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPSno data
ROPs168
TMUs648

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-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 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 typeGDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount1 GB128 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz680 MBps
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s21.76 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)9.0 (9_0)
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.32.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.3-

Pros & cons summary


Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 150 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 108 Watt 94 Watt

FX 3800 has a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 172.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 9800 PRO MAXX, on the other hand, has 14.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro FX 3800 and Radeon 9800 PRO MAXX. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 9800 PRO MAXX is a desktop 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
ATI Radeon 9800 PRO MAXX
Radeon 9800 PRO MAXX

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

No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon 9800 PRO MAXX 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.