Matrox Parhelia 256 MB vs Quadro FX 4800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking825not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency1.18no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Parhelia (2002−2006)
GPU code nameGT200BParhelia-512
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)25 June 2002 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 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 speed602 MHz200 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million80 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Wattno data
Texture fill rate38.530.8
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPSno data
ROPs244
TMUs644

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 4x
Length267 mm175 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 amount1536 MB256 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s16 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-Video2x DVI

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)8.1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.31.5
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.3-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 11 November 2008 25 June 2002
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 256 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 150 nm

FX 4800 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 172.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Quadro FX 4800 and Matrox Parhelia 256 MB. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation graphics card while Matrox Parhelia 256 MB 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
Matrox Parhelia 256 MB
Parhelia 256 MB

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
1.6 10 votes

Rate Matrox Parhelia 256 MB 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.