Tesla M6 vs Quadro FX 880M

Place in the ranking	1218	344
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.16	11.08
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	GT216	GM204
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)	30 August 2015 (9 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	1536
Core clock speed	550 MHz	930 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1180 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	113.3
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	3.625 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	64
TMUs	16	96

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)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Width	no data	MXM Module
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.28 GB/s	160.4 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 Connectors

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	1.2	5.2

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.

FX 880M 0.51

Tesla M6 13.92
+2629%

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 230

Tesla M6 6226
+2607%

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

−2400%

500−550
+2400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −2400%	100−105 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2525%	210−220 +2525%
Valorant	27−30 −2579%	750−800 +2579%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	16−18 −2547%	450−500 +2547%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Dota 2	12−14 −2400%	300−310 +2400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −2400%	100−105 +2400%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2525%	210−220 +2525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −2400%	100−105 +2400%
Valorant	27−30 −2579%	750−800 +2579%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Dota 2	12−14 −2400%	300−310 +2400%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −2400%	100−105 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2525%	210−220 +2525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −2400%	100−105 +2400%
Valorant	27−30 −2579%	750−800 +2579%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 −2500%	130−140 +2500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

1−2

−2600%

27−30
+2600%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −2567%	400−450 +2567%
Valorant	3−4 −2567%	80−85 +2567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−2400%

50−55
+2400%

This is how FX 880M and Tesla M6 compete in popular games:

Tesla M6 is 2400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.51	13.92
Recency	7 January 2010	30 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	100 Watt

FX 880M has 185.7% lower power consumption.

Tesla M6, on the other hand, has a 2629.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Tesla M6 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation card while Tesla M6 is a workstation one.