UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) vs Quadro FX 3600M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3600M with UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU), including specs and performance data.

FX 3600M
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 70 Watt
1.21

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms FX 3600M by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1052855
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.1815.49
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameG92Gen. 11
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date23 February 2008 (16 years ago)11 January 2021 (3 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 cores6424
Core clock speed500 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Watt4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate16.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.16 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEno data

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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed799 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth51.14 GB/sno data
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 data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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 HD7−8
−100%
14
+100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−35.7%
18−20
+35.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−12.5%
35−40
+12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−35.7%
18−20
+35.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−12.5%
35−40
+12.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−35.7%
18−20
+35.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+175%
4
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−12.5%
35−40
+12.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 1−2
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how FX 3600M and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is 100% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 3600M is 175% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3600M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is ahead in 43 tests (88%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.21 2.26
Recency 23 February 2008 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 65 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 70 Watt 4 Watt

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) has a 86.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 550% more advanced lithography process, and 1650% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3600M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is a mobile workstation one.


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
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)

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
3.2 58 votes

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 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.