Quadro CX vs GeForce GTX 675M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 675M SLI with Quadro CX, including specs and performance data.

GTX 675M SLI
2011
2 Watt
8.68
+253%

GTX 675M SLI outperforms CX by a whopping 253% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking507846
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.05
Power efficiency2.981.12
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameN12E-GTX2GT200B
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 January 2011 (14 years ago)11 November 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores768192
Core clock speed620 MHz602 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)2x 100 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rateno data38.53
Floating-point processing powerno data0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPsno data24
TMUsno data64

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1536 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed3000 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data76.8 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 data1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA+1.3

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 Preset

Atomic Heart 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Fortnite 45−50
+308%
12−14
−308%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
Valorant 80−85
+290%
21−24
−290%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+266%
35−40
−266%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Dota 2 60−65
+281%
16−18
−281%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Fortnite 45−50
+308%
12−14
−308%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Valorant 80−85
+290%
21−24
−290%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Dota 2 60−65
+281%
16−18
−281%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Valorant 80−85
+290%
21−24
−290%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+308%
12−14
−308%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+288%
16−18
−288%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+320%
10−11
−320%
Valorant 90−95
+283%
24−27
−283%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+260%
5−6
−260%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Valorant 40−45
+320%
10−11
−320%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.68 2.46
Recency 6 January 2011 11 November 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 2 Watt 150 Watt

GTX 675M SLI has a 252.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 7400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 675M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro CX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 675M SLI is a notebook card while Quadro CX is a 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 GeForce GTX 675M SLI
GeForce GTX 675M SLI
NVIDIA Quadro CX
Quadro CX

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.


2.5 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 675M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Quadro CX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 675M SLI or Quadro CX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.