Quadro FX 3600M vs Quadro 5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000M and Quadro FX 3600M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
5000M outperforms FX 3600M by a whopping 342% 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 | 662 | 1105 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.74 | 1.21 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | G92 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 July 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 February 2008 (17 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | 0.16 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
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 | 1792 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 799 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 51.14 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+90.6%
|
30−35
−90.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+219%
|
27−30
−219%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+90.6%
|
30−35
−90.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+90.6%
|
30−35
−90.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| God of War | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 2650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro 5000M surpassed FX 3600M in all 42 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.91 | 1.11 |
| Recency | 27 July 2010 | 23 February 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 70 Watt |
Quadro 5000M has a 342.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 250% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.
FX 3600M, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
