Quadro FX 880M vs Radeon R5 M255

Place in the ranking	1002	1202
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	1.15
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Topaz	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	12 October 2014 (10 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 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	384	48
Compute units	5	no data
Core clock speed	925 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	940 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,550 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.56	8.800
Floating-point processing power	0.7219 TFLOPS	0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	16

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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 3.0 x8	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)

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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16 GB/s	25.28 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	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.3	4.1
OpenGL	4.4	3.3
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
Mantle	+	-
CUDA	-	1.2

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. 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.

R5 M255 1.39
+140%

FX 880M 0.58

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.

R5 M255 536
+140%

FX 880M 223

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R5 M255 5399
+105%

FX 880M 2639

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:

900p	21 +163%	8−9 −163%
Full HD	13 −53.8%	20 +53.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6
+100%

3−4

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	5 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +200%	3−4 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +100%	6−7 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5 −120%	10−12 +120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −233%	10−11 +233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how R5 M255 and FX 880M compete in popular games:

R5 M255 is 163% faster in 900p
FX 880M is 54% faster in 1080p

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 M255 is 600% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 880M is 233% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R5 M255 is ahead in 29 tests (83%)
FX 880M is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.39	0.58
Recency	12 October 2014	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

R5 M255 has a 139.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 M255 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 880M 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.