Quadro FX 880M vs GeForce GTX 680M

Place in the ranking	502	1210
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.81	no data
Power efficiency	5.82	1.14
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK104	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	4 June 2012 (12 years ago)	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$310.50	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	1344	48
Core clock speed	719 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	758 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,540 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.90	8.800
Floating-point processing power	2.038 TFLOPS	0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	112	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	large	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	115.2 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
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.

GTX 680M 8.46
+1359%

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.

GTX 680M 3251
+1358%

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.

GTX 680M 21534
+716%

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	67 +1575%	4−5 −1575%
Full HD	64 +237%	19 −237%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.85

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Elden Ring	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +467%	6−7 −467%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
Valorant	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Dota 2	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Elden Ring	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +414%	7−8 −414%
Fortnite	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +467%	6−7 −467%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +644%	9−10 −644%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +360%	5−6 −360%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +420%	5−6 −420%
Valorant	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
World of Tanks	128 +653%	16−18 −653%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Dota 2	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +414%	7−8 −414%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +467%	6−7 −467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +644%	9−10 −644%
Valorant	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11	0−1
Elden Ring	10−12	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
World of Tanks	60−65 +6000%	1−2 −6000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +350%	4−5 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Metro Exodus	14−16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Valorant	21−24 +320%	5−6 −320%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Elden Ring	5−6	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Fortnite	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−11	0−1
Valorant	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

This is how GTX 680M and FX 880M compete in popular games:

GTX 680M is 1575% faster in 900p
GTX 680M is 237% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M is 6000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 680M surpassed FX 880M in all 33 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.46	0.58
Recency	4 June 2012	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	35 Watt

GTX 680M has a 1358.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

FX 880M, on the other hand, has 185.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M 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.