CPU
GPU
Radeon R7 M260DX
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 3800
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 Radeon R7 M260DX is positioned at rank 604 and the Quadro FX 3800 is on rank 347, 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 Radeon R7 M260DX
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 3800
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 | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1412.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
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 Radeon R7 M260DX and Quadro FX 3800
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R7 M260DX scores 817 and the Quadro FX 3800 reaches 824 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R7 M260DX is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro FX 3800 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (Radeon R7 M260DX) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3800). Raw compute: 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260DX) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3800).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 817 | 824 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+60% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5491 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS+13% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R7 M260DX comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 3800 has 1 GB. The Quadro FX 3800 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_0 (Radeon R7 M260DX) vs 10_0 (Quadro FX 3800). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 2.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_0+20% | 10_0 |
| Max Displays | 0 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 M260DX) vs PureVideo HD (Quadro FX 3800). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs PureVideo HD.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | PureVideo HD |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | PureVideo HD |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 M260DX draws 75W versus the Quadro FX 3800's 189W — a 86.4% difference. The Radeon R7 M260DX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R7 M260DX) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3800). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 1mm vs 1mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-60% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | 1mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Perf/Watt | 10.9+148% | 4.4 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 M260DX launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the Quadro FX 3800 launched at $799 and now averages $20. The Quadro FX 3800 costs 93.3% less ($280 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.7 (Radeon R7 M260DX) vs 41.2 (Quadro FX 3800) — the Quadro FX 3800 offers 1425.9% better value. The Radeon R7 M260DX is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).
| Feature | Radeon R7 M260DX | Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300-62% | $799 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $20-93% |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.7 | 41.2+1426% |
| Codename | Opal | GT200B |
| Release | December 6 2015 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #878 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 M260DX and Quadro FX 3800
