Quadro FX 3600M vs FX 2800M

Place in performance ranking	1048	1013
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.05	0.15
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	NB10-GLM3	NB8E-GLM
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 December 2009 (14 years old)	23 February 2008 (16 years old)
Current price	$140	$80

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 3600M has 200% better value for money than FX 2800M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	96	96
Core clock speed	600 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	28.80	16.00
Floating-point performance	288 gflops	160 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 2800M and Quadro FX 3600M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	large
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-HE

Memory

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	51.14 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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 outputs

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.0	4.0
OpenGL	3.3	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 2800M 1.07

FX 3600M 1.20
+12.1%

FX 3600M outperforms FX 2800M by 12% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

FX 2800M 416

FX 3600M 466
+12%

FX 3600M outperforms FX 2800M by 12% in Passmark.

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

31
+3.3%

30−35

−3.3%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	1−2
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	1−2
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how FX 2800M and FX 3600M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

FX 2800M is 3.3% faster than FX 3600M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 3600M is 100% faster than the FX 2800M.

All in all, in popular games:

FX 3600M is ahead in 5 tests (19%)
there's a draw in 22 tests (81%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	1.07	1.20
Recency	1 December 2009	23 February 2008
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	55 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	70 Watt