GeForce GTX 260 vs Quadro FX 4800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4800 with GeForce GTX 260, including specs and performance data.

FX 4800
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.55

GTX 260 outperforms FX 4800 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking826751
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.050.16
Power efficiency1.161.19
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGT200BGT200
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 260 has 220% better value for money than FX 4800.

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 speed602 MHz576 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate38.5336.86
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs2428
TMUs6464

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 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin2x 6-pin
SLI options-+

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 amount1536 MB896 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz999 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s111.9 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 DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.11.1
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 4800 2.55
GTX 260 3.15
+23.5%

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 4800 981
GTX 260 1215
+23.9%

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 2.55 3.15
Recency 11 November 2008 16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 896 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 182 Watt

FX 4800 has an age advantage of 4 months, a 71.4% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 21.3% lower power consumption.

GTX 260, on the other hand, has a 23.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 260 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 4800
Quadro FX 4800
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260

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.


4.2 62 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 606 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 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.