NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 380
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 380 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 NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- 2.5x more core clock speed: 1120 MHz vs 450 MHz
- Around 86% higher texture fill rate: 6.7 billion / sec vs 3.6 GTexel / s
- 6x more pipelines: 96 vs 16
- 6.1x better floating-point performance: 215.04 gflops vs 35.2 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 48% lower typical power consumption: 23 Watt vs 34 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 256 MB
- 3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 519 vs 173
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 171 vs 66
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 3 September 2010 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz vs 450 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 6.7 billion / sec vs 3.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 215.04 gflops vs 35.2 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt vs 34 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 256 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 519 vs 173 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 171 vs 66 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 380
- Around 75% higher memory clock speed: 1400 MHz vs 800 MHz
- Around 78% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1230 vs 690
- Around 78% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1230 vs 690
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz vs 800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1230 vs 690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1230 vs 690 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 380
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 380 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 519 | 173 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 171 | 66 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1872 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.184 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 172.058 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.459 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 8.145 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 13.944 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 859 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 719 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 690 | 1230 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 859 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 719 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 690 | 1230 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 380 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
| Code name | GF108 | G96 |
| Launch date | 3 September 2010 | 30 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1570 | 1572 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $129 | |
| Price now | $72.50 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 2.68 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 450 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 96 | |
| Floating-point performance | 215.04 gflops | 35.2 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 6.7 billion / sec | 3.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt | 34 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 314 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 198 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB / s | 22.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 425M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 425M vs
NVIDIAGeForce Go 7900 GS
NVIDIAGeForce GT 425M vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9650M GT
NVIDIAGeForce GT 425M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 380
NVIDIAGeForce GT 425M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4100 IGP
NVIDIAGeForce GT 425M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520MX
NVIDIAGeForce GT 425M vs
AMDROG Ally Extreme
