GeForce 9600M GS vs Quadro FX 880M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 880M with GeForce 9600M GS, including specs and performance data.

FX 880M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.58
+70.6%

FX 880M outperforms 9600M GS by an impressive 71% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12101299
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.141.17
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT216G96C
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)3 June 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 cores4832
Core clock speed550 MHz103 MHz
Number of transistors486 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate8.8006.880
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.0688 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1616

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-II

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.28 GB/s25.6 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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.21.1

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. 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 880M 0.58
+70.6%
9600M GS 0.34

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 880M 223
+71.5%
9600M GS 130

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.

FX 880M 2639
+132%
9600M GS 1135

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 HD19
+90%
10−12
−90%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 16−18
+30.8%
12−14
−30.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
World of Tanks 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how FX 880M and 9600M GS compete in popular games:

  • FX 880M is 90% faster in 1080p

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 880M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 880M is ahead in 15 tests (47%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (53%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.58 0.34
Recency 7 January 2010 3 June 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 20 Watt

FX 880M has a 70.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.

9600M GS, on the other hand, has 75% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 880M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600M GS in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 9600M GS 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.

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 880M
Quadro FX 880M
NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GS
GeForce 9600M GS

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.


3.2 41 vote

Rate Quadro FX 880M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 35 votes

Rate GeForce 9600M GS 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.