Quadro FX 880M vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with Quadro FX 880M, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
5.79
+953%

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms FX 880M by a whopping 953% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5921214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency27.841.13
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVega RenoirGT216
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date7 January 2020 (5 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 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 cores38448
Core clock speed400 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data486 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data8.800
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 datamedium sized
Interfaceno dataMXM-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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.28 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_111.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.2

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 HD21
+10.5%
19
−10.5%
1440p22
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
4K17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+267%
3−4
−267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Counter-Strike 2 9
+50%
6−7
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+333%
6−7
−333%
Forza Horizon 5 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Metro Exodus 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 22
+340%
5−6
−340%
Valorant 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Counter-Strike 2 8
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Far Cry 5 26
+225%
8−9
−225%
Fortnite 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21
+250%
6−7
−250%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 39
+388%
8−9
−388%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Valorant 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
World of Tanks 56
+229%
16−18
−229%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Counter-Strike 2 7
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Dota 2 40
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 18
+200%
6−7
−200%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+525%
8−9
−525%
Valorant 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 6−7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1
World of Tanks 40−45
+4300%
1−2
−4300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Valorant 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 19
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Fortnite 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 4−5 0−1
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and FX 880M compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 11% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1000% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1600% faster in 4K

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

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 4300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 30 tests (88%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (12%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.79 0.55
Recency 7 January 2020 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 7 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 952.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 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.

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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M

Other comparisons

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.


4 709 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 42 votes

Rate Quadro FX 880M 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.