Quadro FX 3800 vs Radeon R9 380

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380 with Quadro FX 3800, including specs and performance data.

R9 380
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
15.90
+643%

R9 380 outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 643% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking339861
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.030.06
Power efficiency5.831.38
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameAntiguaGT200B
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 380 has 14950% better value for money than FX 3800.

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 cores1792192
Compute units28no data
Core clock speedno data600 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt108 Watt
Texture fill rate108.638.40
Floating-point processing power3.476 TFLOPS0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11264

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length221 mm198 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Form factorfull height / full length / dual slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 6-pin1x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 GB/s51.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-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.

R9 380 15.90
+643%
FX 3800 2.14

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.

R9 380 6134
+644%
FX 3800 824

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 HD68
+656%
9−10
−656%
4K25
+733%
3−4
−733%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.9388.78
4K7.96266.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+760%
5−6
−760%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+750%
12−14
−750%
Hitman 3 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+700%
10−11
−700%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+710%
10−11
−710%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+760%
5−6
−760%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+750%
12−14
−750%
Hitman 3 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+700%
10−11
−700%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+671%
7−8
−671%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100
+733%
12−14
−733%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+710%
10−11
−710%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+825%
4−5
−825%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+750%
12−14
−750%
Hitman 3 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+700%
10−11
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+650%
4−5
−650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+710%
10−11
−710%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+740%
10−11
−740%
Hitman 3 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+708%
12−14
−708%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+700%
10−11
−700%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+850%
2−3
−850%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

This is how R9 380 and FX 3800 compete in popular games:

  • R9 380 is 656% faster in 1080p
  • R9 380 is 733% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.90 2.14
Recency 18 June 2015 30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 108 Watt

R9 380 has a 643% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3800, on the other hand, has 75.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 380 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop 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.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 380
Radeon R9 380
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Quadro FX 3800

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.


4.1 796 votes

Rate Radeon R9 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 49 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800 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.