FX 880M vs FX 3600M

Place in performance ranking	1013	1170
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.15	no data
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	NB8E-GLM	N10P-GLM
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 February 2008 (16 years old)	7 January 2010 (14 years old)
Current price	$80	$980

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 3600M and FX 880M have a nearly equal value for money.

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	48
Core clock speed	500 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.00	8.800
Floating-point performance	160 gflops	116.16 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 3600M and Quadro FX 880M 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	medium sized
Interface	MXM-HE	MXM-A (3.0)

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, DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	51.14 GB/s	25.28 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_1)
Shader Model	4.0	4.1
OpenGL	3.3	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.1	1.2

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 3600M 1.20
+114%

FX 880M 0.56

FX 3600M outperforms FX 880M by 114% 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 3600M 466
+117%

FX 880M 215

FX 3600M outperforms FX 880M by 117% 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

40−45
+100%

−100%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
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 3600M and FX 880M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

FX 3600M is 100% faster than FX 880M

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 880M.

All in all, in popular games:

FX 3600M is ahead in 19 tests (76%)
there's a draw in 6 tests (24%)

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	1.20	0.56
Recency	23 February 2008	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	70 Watt	35 Watt