GeForce MX250 vs Quadro FX 3600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3600M with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.
MX250 outperforms 3600M by a whopping 408% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1140 | 662 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.24 | 44.04 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GP108B |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 February 2008 (18 years ago) | 20 February 2019 (7 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 937 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 24.91 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.16 TFLOPS | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 (6.4) |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 4−5
−450%
| 22
+450%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−800%
|
27
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−567%
|
20
+567%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−450%
|
11
+450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1800%
|
19
+1800%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1733%
|
55
+1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−343%
|
31
+343%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−211%
|
28
+211%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−247%
|
118
+247%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 19 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−256%
|
95−100
+256%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−327%
|
64
+327%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−733%
|
25
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−243%
|
24
+243%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−600%
|
7
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−156%
|
23
+156%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−238%
|
115
+238%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 14 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−280%
|
57
+280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−129%
|
16
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−111%
|
19
+111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−94.1%
|
65−70
+94.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−633%
|
22
+633%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−529%
|
40−45
+529%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−729%
|
55−60
+729%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13.3%
|
16−18
+13.3%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 20−22 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how FX 3600M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX250 is 450% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 1800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX250 performs better in 39 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.12 | 5.69 |
| Recency | 23 February 2008 | 20 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 10 Watt |
GeForce MX250 has a 408% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3600M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce MX250 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
