Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro FX 880M

Place in the ranking	1205	529
Place by popularity	not in top-100	39
Power efficiency	1.15	11.46
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT216	Cezanne
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 years ago)

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 cores	48	448
Core clock speed	550 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	28

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 size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	IGP
Width	no data	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	25.28 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	1.2	-

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 HD	19 −15.8%	22 +15.8%
1440p	2−3 −1300%	28 +1300%
4K	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−1067%

35−40
+1067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1100%	60−65 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1173%	140−150 +1173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −1067%	350−400 +1067%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1100%	60−65 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1173%	140−150 +1173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1100%	120−130 +1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −1067%	350−400 +1067%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1100%	60−65 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −1173%	140−150 +1173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1100%	120−130 +1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −1067%	350−400 +1067%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−1100%

12−14
+1100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1150%	75−80 +1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −1067%	35−40 +1067%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1067%

35−40
+1067%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1100%

24−27
+1100%

This is how FX 880M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:

Vega 7 is 16% faster in 1080p
Vega 7 is 1300% faster in 1440p
Vega 7 is 1900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.58	7.46
Recency	7 January 2010	13 April 2021
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	45 Watt

FX 880M has 28.6% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 1186.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.