NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 87% higher core clock speed: 1127 MHz vs 602 MHz
- Around 87% higher texture fill rate: 72 billion / sec vs 38.5 GTexel / s
- 5.3x more pipelines: 1024 vs 192
- 5.2x better floating-point performance: 2,413 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- Around 25% lower typical power consumption: 120 Watt vs 150 Watt
- Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1536 MB
- 6.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6111 vs 994
- 10.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 673 vs 62
- Around 22% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18734 vs 15302
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 January 2015 vs 11 November 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1127 MHz vs 602 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 72 billion / sec vs 38.5 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,413 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt vs 150 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1536 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6111 vs 994 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 vs 62 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18734 vs 15302 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
- 228.6x more memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3335
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3335
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3335 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6111 | 994 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 | 62 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18734 | 15302 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 73.733 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 792.44 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.888 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.338 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 200.825 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7218 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3691 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3335 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7218 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3691 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3335 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 162 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GM206 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 22 January 2015 | 11 November 2008 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $1,799 |
| Place in performance rating | 514 | 1313 |
| Price now | $229.99 | $149.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 34.63 | 8.67 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1127 MHz | 602 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1024 | |
| Floating-point performance | 2,413 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 72 billion / sec | 38.5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,940 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | 267 mm |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 400 Watt | |
| SLI options | 2x | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pins | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB / s | 76.8 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 370M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 770
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P1000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960 vs
AMDRadeon RX 560
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5500 XT
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIARTX A500 Mobile
