Quadro FX 370M vs Quadro FX 880M

Place in the ranking	1211	1370
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.14	0.83
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GT216	G98
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)	15 August 2008 (16 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 cores	48	8
Core clock speed	550 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	2.200
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	0.0224 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	4

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-II

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.28 GB/s	9.6 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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	3.3	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.2	1.1

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 880M 0.58
+142%

FX 370M 0.24

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 880M 223
+140%

FX 370M 93

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

19
+171%

7−8

−171%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Fortnite	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
World of Tanks	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
World of Tanks	1−2	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Valorant	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	1−2	0−1

This is how FX 880M and FX 370M compete in popular games:

FX 880M is 171% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 880M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

FX 880M is ahead in 17 tests (57%)
there's a draw in 13 tests (43%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.58	0.24
Recency	7 January 2010	15 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	20 Watt

FX 880M has a 141.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 370M, on the other hand, has 75% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 880M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 370M in performance tests.

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