AMD Radeon R7 260X vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 260X 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, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 260X
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 60% higher texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 38.4 GTexel / s
- 4.7x more pipelines: 896 vs 192
- 4.3x better floating-point performance: 1,971 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
- 3.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3192 vs 825
- 10.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 523 vs 49
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3258
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3258
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s vs 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3192 vs 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 523 vs 49 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3258 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- Around 6% lower typical power consumption: 108 Watt vs 115 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 108 Watt vs 115 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 260X
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R7 260X | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3192 | 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 523 | 49 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.673 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3845 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3485 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3845 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3485 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3258 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1481 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13337 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 260X | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Bonaire | GT200B |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 8 October 2013 | 30 March 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | $799 |
| Place in performance rating | 614 | 1363 |
| Price now | $239 | $109.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 17.15 | 9.89 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,971 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 192 |
| Stream Processors | 896 | |
| Texture fill rate | 61.6 GTexel / s | 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,080 million | 1,400 million |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 198 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 260X with others
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
ATIFirePro M7740
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4270 IGP
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon R9 M270X
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon Pro 560
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon RX 550X
