Radeon R7 M265 vs Quadro FX 3800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3800 with Radeon R7 M265, including specs and performance data.

FX 3800
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 108 Watt
2.14
+50.7%

FX 3800 outperforms R7 M265 by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8661003
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.08no data
Power efficiency1.36no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGT200BTopaz
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)20 May 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 cores192384
Compute unitsno data6
Core clock speed600 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data825 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)108 Wattno data
Texture fill rate38.4023.52
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs6424

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
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s32 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.

FreeSync-+
HD3D-+
PowerTune-+
DualGraphics-+
ZeroCore-+
Switchable graphics-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)DirectX® 11
Shader Model4.06.3
OpenGL3.34.4
OpenCL1.1Not Listed
VulkanN/A-
Mantle-+
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
+50.7%
R7 M265 1.42

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
+51.2%
R7 M265 545

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 HD18−20
+38.5%
13
−38.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p44.39no data

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 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
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 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FX 3800 and R7 M265 compete in popular games:

  • FX 3800 is 38% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 1.42
Recency 30 March 2009 20 May 2014
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm

FX 3800 has a 50.7% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 M265, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro FX 3800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation card while Radeon R7 M265 is a notebook 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
AMD Radeon R7 M265
Radeon R7 M265

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
3 115 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M265 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.