Quadro FX 3800 vs Tesla C2050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla C2050 and Quadro FX 3800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Tesla C2050 outperforms FX 3800 by a whopping 285% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 507 | 866 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 1.36 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 July 2011 (13 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.
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 | 448 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 574 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 32.14 | 38.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.028 TFLOPS | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | 198 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 750 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.24 | 2.14 |
| Recency | 25 July 2011 | 30 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 238 Watt | 108 Watt |
Tesla C2050 has a 285% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
FX 3800, on the other hand, has 120.4% lower power consumption.
The Tesla C2050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
