NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M 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, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 85% higher core clock speed: 1249 MHz vs 675 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- 3.6x lower typical power consumption: 28 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Around 64% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 69 vs 42
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 7 January 2010 vs 14 August 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1249 MHz vs 675 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 28 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 69 vs 42 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M
- 2.7x more texture fill rate: 43.2 GTexel / s vs 16 GTexel / s
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 128 vs 96
- Around 76% better floating-point performance: 422.4 gflops vs 240 gflops
- Around 51% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 575 vs 381
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3272 vs 3123
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3272 vs 3123
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 43.2 GTexel / s vs 16 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 128 vs 96 |
| Floating-point performance | 422.4 gflops vs 240 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 575 vs 381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3272 vs 3123 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3272 vs 3123 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 381 | 575 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 69 | 42 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3123 | 3272 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3123 | 3272 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8210 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTS 350M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | GT215 | G92 |
| Launch date | 7 January 2010 | 14 August 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1412 | 1413 |
| Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1249 MHz | 675 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 96 | |
| Floating-point performance | 240 gflops | 422.4 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 360 | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 128 |
| Texture fill rate | 16 GTexel / s | 43.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 28 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Transistor count | 727 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-II | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Laptop size | large | large |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB / s | 64.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| MXM 3.0 Type-B | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PowerMizer 8.0 | ||
| SLI | ||

