Quadro FX 4800 vs Radeon R7 M260X
Quadro FX 4800
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 M260X
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 4800 is positioned at rank 379 and the Radeon R7 M260X is on rank 410, so the Quadro FX 4800 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 4800
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 M260X
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R7 M260X is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The Radeon R7 M260X likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 4800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 M260X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score and 166.7% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 4800.
| Insight | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) |
| 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 | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+166.7%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R7 M260X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R7 M260X holds the technical lead. Priced at $35 (vs $80), it costs 56% less, resulting in a 130.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+130.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80) | ✅More affordable ($35) |
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 4800 and Radeon R7 M260X
Quadro FX 4800
The Quadro FX 4800 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $1,799.
Radeon R7 M260X
The Radeon R7 M260X 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: 1,013 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 4800 scores 1,005 and the Radeon R7 M260X reaches 1,013 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 4800 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon R7 M260X uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro FX 4800) vs 384 (Radeon R7 M260X). Raw compute: 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 4800) vs 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X).
| Feature | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,005 | 1,013 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 384+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 0.5491 TFLOPS+19% |
| ROPs | 24+200% | 8 |
| TMUs | 64+167% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 4800 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 M260X has 4 GB. The Radeon R7 M260X offers 166.7% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 192 KB (Quadro FX 4800) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 M260X) — the Radeon R7 M260X has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1.5 GB | 4 GB+167% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 4800 draws 150W versus the Radeon R7 M260X's 75W — a 66.7% difference. The Radeon R7 M260X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 4800) vs 350W (Radeon R7 M260X). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 75W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 6.7 | 13.5+101% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 4800 launched at $1799 MSRP and currently averages $80, while the Radeon R7 M260X launched at $139 and now averages $35. The Radeon R7 M260X costs 56.3% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 12.6 (Quadro FX 4800) vs 28.9 (Radeon R7 M260X) — the Radeon R7 M260X offers 129.4% better value. The Radeon R7 M260X is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 4800 | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1799 | $139-92% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $80 | $35-56% |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.6 | 28.9+129% |
| Codename | GT200B | Opal |
| Release | November 11 2008 | December 6 2015 |
| Ranking | #884 | #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 4800 and Radeon R7 M260X
