Quadro FX 2800M vs GeForce 930MX

Place in the ranking	739	1087
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	13.44	0.99
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM108	G92
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 March 2016 (8 years ago)	1 December 2009 (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 cores	384	96
Core clock speed	952 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1020 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	17 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.48	28.80
Floating-point processing power	0.7834 TFLOPS	0.288 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	48

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	large
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	DDR3, GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	64 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

Supported technologies

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

GPU Boost	2.0	no data
Optimus	+	-
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	+

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.

GeForce 930MX 3.33
+208%

FX 2800M 1.08

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.

GeForce 930MX 1284
+209%

FX 2800M 415

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.

GeForce 930MX 8062
+39.4%

FX 2800M 5783

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

−107%

31
+107%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8
+167%

3−4

−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10 +100%	5−6 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20	0−1
Hitman 3	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Metro Exodus	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +85.7%	7−8 −85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +25%	30−35 −25%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +84.6%	12−14 −84.6%
Metro Exodus	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	31 +182%	10−12 −182%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +25%	30−35 −25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10 −30%	12−14 +30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −83.3%	10−12 +83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +25%	30−35 −25%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+700%

1−2

−700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how GeForce 930MX and FX 2800M compete in popular games:

FX 2800M is 107% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 930MX is 1200% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2800M is 83% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 930MX is ahead in 41 test (95%)
FX 2800M is ahead in 2 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.33	1.08
Recency	1 March 2016	1 December 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	17 Watt	75 Watt

GeForce 930MX has a 208.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 341.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 930MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 930MX is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2800M 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.