NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 91% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 500 MHz
- 7.9x more texture fill rate: 127.1 GTexel / s vs 16 GTexel / s
- 16x more pipelines: 1536 vs 96
- 19.1x better floating-point performance: 3,050 gflops vs 160 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 16x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 512 MB
- 8.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3818 vs 467
- Around 84% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 1820
- Around 84% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 1820
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 12 March 2014 vs 23 February 2008 |
Core clock speed | 954 MHz vs 500 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 127.1 GTexel / s vs 16 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1536 vs 96 |
Floating-point performance | 3,050 gflops vs 160 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 512 MB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3818 vs 467 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 1820 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 1820 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
- Around 74% lower typical power consumption: 70 Watt vs 122 Watt
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 365 vs 333
Specifications (specs) | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 70 Watt vs 122 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 365 vs 333 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3818 | 467 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 333 | 365 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 15023 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.273 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 777.677 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.914 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.196 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 82.511 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4501 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3718 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 1820 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4501 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3718 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 1820 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1611 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
Code name | GK104 | G92 |
Launch date | 12 March 2014 | 23 February 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 775 | 778 |
Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 993 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 500 MHz |
CUDA cores | 1536 | |
Floating-point performance | 3,050 gflops | 160 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Pipelines | 1536 | 96 |
Texture fill rate | 127.1 GTexel / s | 16 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 122 Watt | 70 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,540 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | ||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | ||
HDMI | ||
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | |
HDCP | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
Laptop size | large | large |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB / s | 51.1 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | |
Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
BatteryBoost | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA | ||
Gigathread technology | ||
HDCP-capable | ||
HDR (High Dynamic-Range Lighting) | ||
PCI-E 16x | ||
PowerMizer 7.0 |