GeForce 8800 GT vs Quadro K3100M

Place in the ranking	590	1045
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.23	0.02
Power efficiency	5.41	0.67
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GK104	G92
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,999	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K3100M has 1050% better value for money than 8800 GT.

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	768	112
Core clock speed	706 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	45.18	33.60
Floating-point processing power	1.084 TFLOPS	0.336 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	56

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	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Height	no data	Single Slot
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin
SLI options	-	2-way

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	102.4 GB/s	57.6 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 Connectors	No outputs	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Display Port	1.2	no data
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)	no data	128bit
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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.

K3100M 5.87
+381%

8800 GT 1.22

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.

K3100M 2264
+381%

8800 GT 471

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	34 +386%	7−8 −386%
4K	15 +400%	3−4 −400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	58.79	49.86
4K	133.27	116.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+400%

2−3
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +443%	7−8 −443%
Hitman 3	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +414%	7−8 −414%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +390%	10−11 −390%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Battlefield 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +443%	7−8 −443%
Hitman 3	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +414%	7−8 −414%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	46 +411%	9−10 −411%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +390%	10−11 −390%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +443%	7−8 −443%
Hitman 3	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +414%	7−8 −414%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +390%	10−11 −390%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+433%

3−4
−433%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Hitman 3	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+400%

2−3
−400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 +400%	1−2 −400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

This is how K3100M and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

K3100M is 386% faster in 1080p
K3100M is 400% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.87	1.22
Recency	23 July 2013	29 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	105 Watt

K3100M has a 381.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.

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