CPU
GPU
GeForce GTX 280M
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 3800M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GTX 280M is positioned at rank 120 and the Quadro FX 3800M is on rank 46, so the Quadro FX 3800M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 280M
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 3800M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 280M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 3800M.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 280M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 280M and Quadro FX 3800M
GeForce GTX 280M
The GeForce GTX 280M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 236W. Manufactured using 65 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 576 points. Launch price was $649.
Quadro FX 3800M
The Quadro FX 3800M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 572 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 280M scores 576 and the Quadro FX 3800M reaches 572 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 280M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Quadro FX 3800M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 65 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 240 (GeForce GTX 280M) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3800M). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 280M) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3800M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 576 | 572 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 65 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 1 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 280M) vs 10 (Quadro FX 3800M). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0)+11% | 10 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 280M) vs None (Quadro FX 3800M). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP2 vs PureVideo HD (VP2). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 280M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Quadro FX 3800M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP2 | PureVideo HD (VP2) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 280M draws 236W versus the Quadro FX 3800M's 189W — a 22.1% difference. The Quadro FX 3800M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 280M) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3800M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 90.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 280M | Quadro FX 3800M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 236W | 189W-20% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C-6% | 90 |
| Perf/Watt | 2.4 | 3.0+25% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 280M and Quadro FX 3800M
