AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM and NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 602 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 384 vs 192
- Around 74% better floating-point performance: 806.4 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 65 Watt vs 150 Watt
- 2.5x more memory clock speed: 4000 MHz vs 1600 MHz
Launch date | 5 May 2015 vs 11 November 2008 |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 602 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 vs 192 |
Floating-point performance | 806.4 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 150 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
- Around 53% higher texture fill rate: 38.5 GTexel / s vs 25.2 GTexel / s
- Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 1536 MB vs 1 GB
- 2.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 15302 vs 5412
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3260
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3260
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 38.5 GTexel / s vs 25.2 GTexel / s |
Maximum memory size | 1536 MB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 15302 vs 5412 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3260 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3260 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5412 | 15302 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1106 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1106 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1841 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1841 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3260 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3260 | 3358 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 982 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 73 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | Oland | GT200B |
Launch date | 5 May 2015 | 11 November 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 1287 | 1295 |
Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $1,799 | |
Price now | $149.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 8.67 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 602 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 806.4 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
Texture fill rate | 25.2 GTexel / s | 38.5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
Length | 267 mm | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1536 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 72 GB / s | 76.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |