Quadro FX 3600M vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
4000 5000 6000 6000 Passive 8000 8000 Passive 8100 8200
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1500M 1600M 1700M 1800M 2500M 2700M 2800M 3500M 3600M 3700M 3800M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with Quadro FX 3600M, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018, $899
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
35.68
+3114%

RTX 4000 outperforms 3600M by a whopping 3114% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
RTX 4000 RTX 4000
FX 3600M FX 3600M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1561118
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.78no data
Power efficiency17.121.22
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameTU104G92
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date13 November 2018 (7 years ago)23 February 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores230464
Core clock speed1005 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,600 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate222.516.00
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS0.16 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs14432
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no data
L1 Cache2.3 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MB64 KB

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-HE
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz799 MHz
Memory bandwidth416.0 GB/s51.14 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.84.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA7.51.1
DLSS+-

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.

RTX 4000 35.68
+3114%
FX 3600M 1.11

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.

RTX 4000 14920
+3102%
Samples: 2160
FX 3600M 466
Samples: 36

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

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 35.68 1.11
Recency 13 November 2018 23 February 2008
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 12 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 3114.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3600M, on the other hand, has 128.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro FX 3600M is a mobile workstation one.

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 RTX 4000
Quadro RTX 4000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
Quadro FX 3600M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro W6600 Radeon Pro W6600
FX 3600M Quadro FX 3600M
vs
FX 3700M Quadro FX 3700M
RTX 4000 Quadro RTX 4000
vs
Pro W6800X Duo Radeon Pro W6800X Duo
P5200 Max-Q Quadro P5200 Max-Q
vs
Vega 6 Embedded 6 Embedded
P5200 Max-Q Quadro P5200 Max-Q
vs
A10G
P5200 Max-Q Quadro P5200 Max-Q
vs
RTX 5070 Ti Mobile 5070 Ti Mobile
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
GTX 765M 765M
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
Pro 455 455
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
HD 6870 1600SP Edition 6870 1600SP Edition
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
GT 630 630
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
GT 530 OEM 530 OEM
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
GT 440 Mac Edition 440 Mac Edition
RTX 4000 NVIDIA RTX 4000
vs
GT 440 440

Community ratings

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

3.6 524 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 4000 or Quadro FX 3600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.