NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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 960M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- 2.2x more core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 500 MHz
- 2.9x more texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel / s vs 16 GTexel / s
- 6.7x more pipelines: 640 vs 96
- 9.4x better floating-point performance: 1,505 gflops vs 160 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 65 nm
- 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 56% higher memory clock speed: 2500 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 7.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3383 vs 467
- Around 85% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1820
- Around 85% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1820
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 vs 23 February 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz vs 500 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 GTexel / s vs 16 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 96 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops vs 160 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 65 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 512 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3383 vs 467 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 1820 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 1820 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
- Around 7% lower typical power consumption: 70 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 48% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 365 vs 246
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 70 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 365 vs 246 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
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 960M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3383 | 467 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 246 | 365 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10898 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 1820 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 1820 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla |
| Code name | GM107 | G92 |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 | 23 February 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 773 | 776 |
| Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 500 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 640 | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | 160 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 96 |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 GTexel / s | 16 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 754 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 | |
| HDCP | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB / s | 51.1 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
| Gigathread technology | ||
| HDCP-capable | ||
| HDR (High Dynamic-Range Lighting) | ||
| PCI-E 16x | ||
| PowerMizer 7.0 | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 160M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon E8950
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon RX 460 (Laptop)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX330
