NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M 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. 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 820M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- Around 29% higher core clock speed: 775 MHz vs 600 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 7.2x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 108 Watt
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 144 vs 49
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3327 vs 3258
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3327 vs 3258
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 November 2013 vs 30 March 2009 |
Core clock speed | 775 MHz vs 600 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 108 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 144 vs 49 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3327 vs 3258 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3327 vs 3258 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- 3.1x more texture fill rate: 38.4 GTexel / s vs 12.4 GTexel / s
- 2x more pipelines: 192 vs 96
- Around 55% better floating-point performance: 462.3 gflops vs 297.6 gflops
- Around 50% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 825 vs 551
- 5.3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13337 vs 2530
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 38.4 GTexel / s vs 12.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 192 vs 96 |
Floating-point performance | 462.3 gflops vs 297.6 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 825 vs 551 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 13337 vs 2530 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M
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 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 551 | 825 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 144 | 49 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2530 | 13337 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.692 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 161.29 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.55 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.858 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 17.753 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1263 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2479 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3327 | 3258 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1263 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2479 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3327 | 3258 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GF117 | GT200B |
Launch date | 27 November 2013 | 30 March 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1366 | 1363 |
Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | |
Price now | $109.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 9.89 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 600 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 297.6 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
Pipelines | 96 | 192 |
Texture fill rate | 12.4 GTexel / s | 38.4 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 108 Watt |
Transistor count | 585 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 198 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 51.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |