Radeon Pro W6800 vs Quadro FX 4800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro CX Quadro FX 3800 Quadro FX 4800 Quadro FX 5800 Quadro Plex 2200 D2 Quadro Plex 2200 S4 Tesla C1060 Tesla C1080 Tesla M1060 Tesla S1070 Tesla S1075 Tesla T10 Processor
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon Pro W5500 Radeon Pro W5500X Radeon Pro W5700 Radeon Pro W5700X Radeon Pro W6400 Radeon Pro W6600 Radeon Pro W6600X Radeon Pro W6800 Radeon Pro W6800X Radeon Pro W6800X Duo Radeon Pro W6900X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4800 and Radeon Pro W6800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 4800
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.53

Pro W6800 outperforms FX 4800 by a whopping 1927% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

FX 4800 FX 4800
Pro W6800 Pro W6800

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking82052
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0423.18
Power efficiency1.1714.27
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT200BNavi 21
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date11 November 2008 (15 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 $2,249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro W6800 has 57850% 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 cores1923840
Core clock speed602 MHz2075 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2320 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate38.53556.8
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS17.82 TFLOPS
ROPs2496
TMUs64240
Ray Tracing Coresno data60

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 4.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB32 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s512.0 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 DisplayPort, 1x S-Video6x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
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 2.53
Pro W6800 51.29
+1927%

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 978
Pro W6800 19791
+1924%

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 HD7−8
−2100%
154
+2100%
1440p6−7
−2150%
135
+2150%
4K4−5
−2025%
85
+2025%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Hitman 3 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Hitman 3 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 277
+0%
277
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Hitman 3 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 225
+0%
225
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 268
+0%
268
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 157
+0%
157
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
Hitman 3 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 179
+0%
179
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 212
+0%
212
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 99
+0%
99
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 126
+0%
126
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

This is how FX 4800 and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6800 is 2100% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W6800 is 2150% faster in 1440p
  • Pro W6800 is 2025% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 2.53 51.29
Recency 11 November 2008 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 32 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 250 Watt

FX 4800 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Pro W6800, on the other hand, has a 1927.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 2033.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.

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
AMD Radeon Pro W6800
Radeon Pro W6800
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

FX 4800 Quadro FX 4800
vs
Quadro 2000D Quadro 2000D
Pro W6800 Radeon Pro W6800
vs
Quadro GV100 Quadro GV100
FX 4800 Quadro FX 4800
vs
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900
FX 4800 Quadro FX 4800
vs
T600 T600
Quadro CX Quadro CX
vs
RTX 4060 Mobile GeForce RTX 4060 Mobile
NVS 440 Quadro NVS 440
vs
Tesla S1070 Tesla S1070
Quadro 4000 Quadro 4000
vs
RTX 3060 Max-Q GeForce RTX 3060 Max-Q
Quadro 6000 Quadro 6000
vs
Tesla C2050 Tesla C2050
FX 1300 Quadro FX 1300
vs
GRID K540Q GRID K540Q
Quadro4 400 NVS PCI Quadro4 400 NVS PCI
vs
Radeon 680M Radeon 680M
Quadro4 100 NVS PCI Quadro4 100 NVS PCI
vs
RTX 4080 GeForce RTX 4080
Vega Frontier Edition Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
vs
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
GTX 1060 Max-Q 3 GB GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q 3 GB
vs
ATI M7 M7

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 61 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 80 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6800 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.