AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 M255 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 M255
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 54% higher core clock speed: 925 MHz vs 600 MHz
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 320 vs 192
- Around 56% better floating-point performance: 721.9 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 133 vs 49
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3258
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3258
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 12 October 2014 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Pipelines | 320 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 133 vs 49 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3258 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- Around 70% higher texture fill rate: 38.4 GTexel / s vs 22.56 GTexel / s
- Around 60% higher memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- Around 52% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 825 vs 541
- 2.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13337 vs 4720
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 38.4 GTexel / s vs 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 825 vs 541 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13337 vs 4720 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 M255
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R5 M255 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 541 | 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 133 | 49 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4720 | 13337 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.288 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 166.596 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.988 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.164 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 66.631 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1459 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1715 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1459 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1715 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3258 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R5 M255 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Topaz | GT200B |
| Design | AMD Radeon R5 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 12 October 2014 | 30 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1365 | 1363 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Price now | $109.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 9.89 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | |
| Compute units | 5 | |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 GTexel / s | 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Transistor count | 3,100 million | 1,400 million |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 198 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 11 | 10.0 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| Enduro | ||
| HD3D | ||
| Powerplay | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R5 M255 with others
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800M GTX
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3800
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5650
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640 OEM
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K600
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 820M
