Quadro FX 3800 vs GeForce 920A
Quadro FX 3800
Popular choices:
GeForce 920A
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 Quadro FX 3800 is positioned at rank 347 and the GeForce 920A is on rank 396, so the Quadro FX 3800 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 3800
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 920A
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 920A is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The GeForce 920A likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 920A is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro FX 3800 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 920A offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 920A holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $20), it costs 25% less, resulting in a 34.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+34.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 Quadro FX 3800 and GeForce 920A
Quadro FX 3800
The Quadro FX 3800 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: 824 points. Launch price was $3,499.
GeForce 920A
The GeForce 920A is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 941 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 829 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3800 scores 824 and the GeForce 920A reaches 829 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3800 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce 920A uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3800) vs 384 (GeForce 920A). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3800) vs 0.7227 TFLOPS (GeForce 920A).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 824 | 829 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 384+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.7227 TFLOPS+16% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 80+233% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro FX 3800 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce 920A has 512 MB. The Quadro FX 3800 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 3800) vs 1 MB (GeForce 920A) — the GeForce 920A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10_0 (Quadro FX 3800) vs 11.0 (GeForce 920A). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10_0 | 11.0+10% |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD (Quadro FX 3800) vs No (GeForce 920A). Decoder: PureVideo HD vs PureVideo HD VP5.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | PureVideo HD | No |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD | PureVideo HD VP5 |
| Codecs | — | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3800 draws 189W versus the GeForce 920A's 33W — a 140.5% difference. The GeForce 920A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3800) vs 350W (GeForce 920A). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy. Card length: 1mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 33W-83% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 1mm | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 4.4 | 25.1+470% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3800 launched at $799 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce 920A launched at $100 and now averages $15. The GeForce 920A costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 41.2 (Quadro FX 3800) vs 55.3 (GeForce 920A) — the GeForce 920A offers 34.2% better value. The GeForce 920A is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | GeForce 920A |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $799 | $100-87% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $15-25% |
| Performance per Dollar | 41.2 | 55.3+34% |
| Codename | GT200B | GM108 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #815 | #810 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3800 and GeForce 920A
