Quadro FX 2000 vs RADEON A9800XT

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. The Quadro FX 2000 is positioned at rank #426 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 2000

#411

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

1477300%

#426

Quadro FX 2000

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $40

100%

#427

GRID V100-8Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $10000

0%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The RADEON A9800XT is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 27.8% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (512 MB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 2000.

Insight	Quadro FX 2000	RADEON A9800XT
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-27.8%)	✅Leading raw performance (+27.8%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+300%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The RADEON A9800XT offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the RADEON A9800XT holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $40), it costs 25% less, resulting in a 70.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Quadro FX 2000	RADEON A9800XT
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+70.4%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($40)	✅More affordable ($30)

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.

Quadro FX 2000 Benchmark Check

RADEON A9800XT Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 2000 and RADEON A9800XT

Quadro FX 2000

The Quadro FX 2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 24 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 62W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 18 points. Launch price was $599.

RADEON A9800XT

The RADEON A9800XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 19 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 970 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 23 points. Launch price was $229.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Quadro FX 2000 scores 18 versus the RADEON A9800XT's 23 — the RADEON A9800XT leads by 27.8%. The Quadro FX 2000 is built on Fermi while the RADEON A9800XT uses GCN 3.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro FX 2000) vs 2,048 (RADEON A9800XT). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2000) vs 3.973 TFLOPS (RADEON A9800XT).

Feature	Quadro FX 2000	RADEON A9800XT
G3D Mark Score	18	23+28%
Architecture	Fermi	GCN 3.0
Process Node	40 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	192	2048+967%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.48 TFLOPS	3.973 TFLOPS+728%
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	32	128+300%
L1 Cache	256 KB	512 KB+100%
L2 Cache	256 KB	512 KB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro FX 2000	RADEON A9800XT
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Quadro FX 2000 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON A9800XT has 512 MB. The RADEON A9800XT offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Quadro FX 2000) vs 512 KB (RADEON A9800XT) — the RADEON A9800XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro FX 2000	RADEON A9800XT
VRAM Capacity	0.125 GB	0.5 GB+300%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB	512 KB+100%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro FX 2000 draws 62W versus the RADEON A9800XT's 250W — a 120.5% difference. The Quadro FX 2000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 2000) vs 350W (RADEON A9800XT). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.

Feature	Quadro FX 2000	RADEON A9800XT
TDP	62W-75%	250W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	Legacy
Length	—	220mm
Slots	—	1
Perf/Watt	0.3+200%	0.1

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro FX 2000 launched at $3000 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the RADEON A9800XT launched at $0 and now averages $30. The RADEON A9800XT costs 25% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.5 (Quadro FX 2000) vs 0.8 (RADEON A9800XT) — the RADEON A9800XT offers 60% better value. The RADEON A9800XT is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2010).