NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 and NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600 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, GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher core clock speed: 610 MHz vs 500 MHz
- 4.1x more texture fill rate: 48.8 GTexel / s vs 12 GTexel / s
- 2.5x more pipelines: 240 vs 96
- 2.7x better floating-point performance: 622.1 gflops vs 230.4 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 55 nm vs 90 nm
- 5.3x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 768 MB
- Around 14% higher memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 1400 MHz
- 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1210 vs 419
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3319 vs 3230
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3319 vs 3230
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 11 November 2008 vs 5 March 2007 |
| Core clock speed | 610 MHz vs 500 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 48.8 GTexel / s vs 12 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 240 vs 96 |
| Floating-point performance | 622.1 gflops vs 230.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm vs 90 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 768 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 1400 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1210 vs 419 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3319 vs 3230 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3319 vs 3230 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
- Around 41% lower typical power consumption: 134 Watt vs 189 Watt
- Around 50% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 120 vs 80
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 134 Watt vs 189 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 120 vs 80 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1210 | 419 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 80 | 120 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18229 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3319 | 3230 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3319 | 3230 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | GT200B | G80 |
| Launch date | 11 November 2008 | 5 March 2007 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,499 | $1,999 |
| Place in performance rating | 1240 | 1242 |
| Price now | $178.89 | $143.51 |
| Type | Workstation | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.02 | 5.45 |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 610 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 622.1 gflops | 230.4 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 90 nm |
| Pipelines | 240 | 96 |
| Texture fill rate | 48.8 GTexel / s | 12 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 189 Watt | 134 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,400 million | 681 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 768 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB / s | 67.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |

