Radeon R5 A240 vs Quadro FX 3800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Radeon R5 A240, including specs and performance data.
FX 3800 outperforms R5 A240 by a considerable 41% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 872 | 980 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Oland |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 780 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.4623 gflops | no data |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 198 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | 1800 MBps |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 28.8 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
| CUDA | 1.3 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
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 | 2.10 | 1.49 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 50 Watt |
FX 3800 has a 40.9% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 A240, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 116% lower power consumption.
The Quadro FX 3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 A240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R5 A240 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
