Radeon RX 6950 XT vs Quadro FX 3600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3600M with Radeon RX 6950 XT, including specs and performance data.
6950 XT outperforms 3600M by a whopping 5953% 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 | 1125 | 25 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 33.77 |
| Power efficiency | 1.22 | 15.44 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 February 2008 (18 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 64 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.16 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 128 |
| TMUs | 32 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 MB |
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 | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 3−4
−7167%
| 218
+7167%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6550%
| 133
+6550%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8300%
| 84
+8300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.04 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.26 |
| 4K | no data | 13.08 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
161
+7950%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7050%
|
143
+7050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8950%
|
181
+8950%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−15000%
|
300−350
+15000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3757%
|
270−280
+3757%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−23600%
|
237
+23600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1119%
|
350−400
+1119%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 170−180 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−933%
|
270−280
+933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6300%
|
128
+6300%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1227%
|
199
+1227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8550%
|
173
+8550%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−15000%
|
300−350
+15000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3757%
|
270−280
+3757%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−22800%
|
229
+22800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−18800%
|
189
+18800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−6167%
|
376
+6167%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1119%
|
350−400
+1119%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6000%
|
122
+6000%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1013%
|
167
+1013%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−8100%
|
164
+8100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3757%
|
270−280
+3757%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1833%
|
170−180
+1833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3500%
|
216
+3500%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1119%
|
350−400
+1119%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−15000%
|
300−350
+15000%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−5800%
|
236
+5800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−7271%
|
500−550
+7271%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1358%
|
170−180
+1358%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−48400%
|
450−500
+48400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 93 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−16200%
|
163
+16200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7733%
|
230−240
+7733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−8250%
|
160−170
+8250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−7450%
|
150−160
+7450%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1143%
|
174
+1143%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−6480%
|
300−350
+6480%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 141 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 349
+0%
|
349
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 339
+0%
|
339
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 318
+0%
|
318
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 172
+0%
|
172
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 124
+0%
|
124
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
This is how FX 3600M and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 7167% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 6550% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 8300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6950 XT is 48400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT performs better in 39 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.11 | 67.19 |
| Recency | 23 February 2008 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 335 Watt |
FX 3600M has 378.6% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 5953.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3600M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
