Quadro NVS 320M vs Quadro FX 3600M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3600M and Quadro NVS 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3600M
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 70 Watt
1.21
+124%

FX 3600M outperforms NVS 320M by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking10441216
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.201.87
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameG92G84
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date23 February 2008 (16 years ago)9 June 2007 (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 cores6432
Core clock speed500 MHz575 MHz
Number of transistors754 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate16.009.200
Floating-point processing power0.16 TFLOPS0.0736 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3216

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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-HEMXM-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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed799 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.14 GB/s22.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.11.1

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. 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 1.21
+124%
NVS 320M 0.54

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.

FX 3600M 466
+124%
NVS 320M 208

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

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 3600M is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3600M is ahead in 27 tests (77%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.21 0.54
Recency 23 February 2008 9 June 2007
Chip lithography 65 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 70 Watt 20 Watt

FX 3600M has a 124.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, and a 23.1% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 320M, on the other hand, has 250% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3600M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 320M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
Quadro FX 3600M
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 320M
Quadro NVS 320M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.