Quadro CX vs GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile with Quadro CX, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 SLI Mobile outperforms CX by a whopping 1501% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 115 | 838 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.05 |
| Power efficiency | 8.21 | 1.13 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | N16E-GXX SLI | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1126 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10400 Million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 24 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 8 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.3 |
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 | 130
+1525%
| 8−9
−1525%
|
| 4K | 69
+1625%
| 4−5
−1625%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 249.88 |
| 4K | no data | 499.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1540%
|
5−6
−1540%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Elden Ring | 130−140
+1625%
|
8−9
−1625%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1633%
|
6−7
−1633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1540%
|
5−6
−1540%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+1810%
|
10−11
−1810%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90−95
+1780%
|
5−6
−1780%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+1825%
|
4−5
−1825%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+1656%
|
9−10
−1656%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1633%
|
6−7
−1633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1540%
|
5−6
−1540%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1657%
|
7−8
−1657%
|
| Elden Ring | 130−140
+1625%
|
8−9
−1625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1517%
|
6−7
−1517%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+1620%
|
10−11
−1620%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+1810%
|
10−11
−1810%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130
+1643%
|
7−8
−1643%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90−95
+1780%
|
5−6
−1780%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+1575%
|
12−14
−1575%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+1825%
|
4−5
−1825%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 141
+1663%
|
8−9
−1663%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+1656%
|
9−10
−1656%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+1644%
|
16−18
−1644%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1633%
|
6−7
−1633%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1540%
|
5−6
−1540%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+1580%
|
5−6
−1580%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1657%
|
7−8
−1657%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1517%
|
6−7
−1517%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+1810%
|
10−11
−1810%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+1575%
|
12−14
−1575%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+1656%
|
9−10
−1656%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Elden Ring | 80−85
+1900%
|
4−5
−1900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1650%
|
10−11
−1650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| World of Tanks | 240−250
+1679%
|
14−16
−1679%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+1714%
|
7−8
−1714%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+1529%
|
7−8
−1529%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+1600%
|
4−5
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1671%
|
7−8
−1671%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+1825%
|
4−5
−1825%
|
| Elden Ring | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+1729%
|
7−8
−1729%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+1825%
|
4−5
−1825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
This is how GTX 980 SLI Mobile and Quadro CX compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 1525% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 SLI Mobile is 1625% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.38 | 2.46 |
| Recency | 22 September 2015 | 11 November 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 330 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 980 SLI Mobile has a 1500.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro CX, on the other hand, has 120% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro CX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 SLI Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro CX is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
