NVIDIA NVS 5200M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA NVS 5200M 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, 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 NVS 5200M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 1 month(s) later
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
• 4x lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 57% higher memory clock speed: 3140 MHz vs 2000 MHz
• 4.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 188 vs 42

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M

• 4x more texture fill rate: 43.2 GTexel / s vs 10.75 GTexel / s
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 128 vs 96
• Around 64% better floating-point performance: 422.4 gflops vs 258.0 gflops
• Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 575 vs 507
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3272 vs 2715
• Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3272 vs 2715

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA NVS 5200M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	507 575
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	188 42
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2715 3272
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2715 3272

Compare specifications (specs)