CPU
GPU
Quadro FX 3800
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 M260DX
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 Radeon R7 M260DX is on rank 604, 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 Radeon R7 M260DX
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R7 M260DX is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The Radeon R7 M260DX 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 Quadro FX 3800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 M260DX.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| 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 | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro FX 3800 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 3800 holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $300), it costs 93% less, resulting in a 1412.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1412.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) |
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 Radeon R7 M260DX
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.
Radeon R7 M260DX
The Radeon R7 M260DX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 6 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 620 MHz to 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 817 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3800 scores 824 and the Radeon R7 M260DX reaches 817 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3800 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon R7 M260DX uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3800) vs 384 (Radeon R7 M260DX). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3800) vs 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260DX).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 824 | 817 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 384+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS+13% | 0.5491 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 80+233% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| 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 3800 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 M260DX 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.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10_0 (Quadro FX 3800) vs 12_0 (Radeon R7 M260DX). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10_0 | 12_0+20% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD (Quadro FX 3800) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 M260DX). Decoder: PureVideo HD vs UVD 4.2.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | PureVideo HD | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD | UVD 4.2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3800 draws 189W versus the Radeon R7 M260DX's 75W — a 86.4% difference. The Radeon R7 M260DX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3800) vs 350W (Radeon R7 M260DX). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Card length: 1mm vs 1mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 75W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 1mm | 1mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 4.4 | 10.9+148% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3800 launched at $799 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the Radeon R7 M260DX launched at $300 and now averages $300. The Quadro FX 3800 costs 93.3% less ($280 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 41.2 (Quadro FX 3800) vs 2.7 (Radeon R7 M260DX) — the Quadro FX 3800 offers 1425.9% better value. The Radeon R7 M260DX is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3800 | Radeon R7 M260DX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $799 | $300-62% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-93% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 41.2+1426% | 2.7 |
| Codename | GT200B | Opal |
| Release | November 11 2008 | December 6 2015 |
| Ranking | #815 | #878 |
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 Radeon R7 M260DX
