Quadro FX 3600M vs GeForce GTX 780M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780M with Quadro FX 3600M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 780M outperforms FX 3600M by a whopping 723% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 457 | 1062 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.62 | 1.19 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | G92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 23 February 2008 (16 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 | 1536 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 797 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.0 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.448 TFLOPS | 0.16 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
| 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 | 512 MB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 799 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 51.14 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 |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 65
+829%
| 7−8
−829%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+264%
|
10−12
−264%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1060%
|
5−6
−1060%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+450%
|
14−16
−450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| World of Tanks | 191
+607%
|
27−30
−607%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+264%
|
10−12
−264%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+450%
|
14−16
−450%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
This is how GTX 780M and FX 3600M compete in popular games:
- GTX 780M is 829% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 780M is 3100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 780M surpassed FX 3600M in all 37 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.63 | 1.17 |
| Recency | 11 May 2013 | 23 February 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 70 Watt |
GTX 780M has a 723.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
FX 3600M, on the other hand, has 74.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 3600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
