GeForce RTX 4050 vs Quadro FX 3600M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3600M with GeForce RTX 4050, including specs and performance data.

FX 3600M
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 70 Watt
1.21

RTX 4050 outperforms FX 3600M by a whopping 2993% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1047122
Place by popularitynot in top-10041
Power efficiency1.2025.91
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG92AD107
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date23 February 2008 (16 years ago)2023 (1 year 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 cores642560
Core clock speed500 MHz2505 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2640 MHz
Number of transistors754 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate16.00211.2
Floating-point processing power0.16 TFLOPS13.52 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3280
Tensor Coresno data120
Ray Tracing Coresno data18

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
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 4.0 x8
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 12-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed799 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.14 GB/s216.0 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 outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.18.9

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.

FX 3600M 1.21
RTX 4050 37.43
+2993%

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.

FX 3600M 466
RTX 4050 14440
+2999%

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

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2757%
400−450
+2757%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2900%
240−250
+2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2869%
950−1000
+2869%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2757%
400−450
+2757%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2900%
240−250
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2869%
950−1000
+2869%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2757%
400−450
+2757%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2900%
240−250
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2869%
950−1000
+2869%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2900%
210−220
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−2900%
150−160
+2900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.21 37.43
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 70 Watt 100 Watt

FX 3600M has 42.9% lower power consumption.

RTX 4050, on the other hand, has a 2993.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3600M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 4050 is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3600M
Quadro FX 3600M
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050
GeForce RTX 4050

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1938 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4050 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.