Quadro FX 3800 vs Quadro M1200

Place in the ranking	497	858
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.06
Power efficiency	12.91	1.37
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM107	GT200B
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$799

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 cores	640	192
Core clock speed	1093 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	108 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.72	38.40
Floating-point processing power	1.399 TFLOPS	0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	40	64

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
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	198 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	51.2 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	1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	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	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	1.3

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.

Quadro M1200 8.39
+294%

FX 3800 2.13

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.

Quadro M1200 3236
+293%

FX 3800 823

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	29 +314%	7−8 −314%
4K	11 +450%	2−3 −450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	114.14
4K	no data	399.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+333%

3−4
−333%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Hitman 3	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +300%	12−14 −300%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +314%	14−16 −314%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Hitman 3	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +300%	12−14 −300%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +317%	6−7 −317%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +300%	6−7 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +314%	14−16 −314%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Hitman 3	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +300%	12−14 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +300%	7−8 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +314%	14−16 −314%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

+360%

5−6
−360%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +325%	8−9 −325%
Hitman 3	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +342%	12−14 −342%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+367%

3−4
−367%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

This is how Quadro M1200 and FX 3800 compete in popular games:

Quadro M1200 is 314% faster in 1080p
Quadro M1200 is 450% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.39	2.13
Recency	11 January 2017	30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	108 Watt

Quadro M1200 has a 293.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1200 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 3800 is a workstation one.

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