UHD Graphics 600 vs Quadro FX 880M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 880M with UHD Graphics 600, including specs and performance data.

FX 880M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.51

UHD Graphics 600 outperforms FX 880M by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12241148
Place by popularitynot in top-10067
Power efficiency1.1611.90
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGT216Gemini Lake GT1
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)11 December 2017 (7 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 cores4896
Core clock speed550 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data650 MHz
Number of transistors486 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt5 Watt
Texture fill rate8.8007.800
Floating-point processing power0.1162 TFLOPS0.1248 TFLOPS
ROPs82
TMUs1612

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 sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)Ring Bus

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed790 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth25.28 GB/sno data
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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A+
CUDA1.2-

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.

FX 880M 0.51
UHD Graphics 600 0.75
+47.1%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance

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 229
UHD Graphics 600 334
+45.9%

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
+20.5%
UHD Graphics 600 2189

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 HD20
+100%
10
−100%
1440p0−11

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+115%
13
−115%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−29.4%
21−24
+29.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Dota 2 10−12
+57.1%
7
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 1−2
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Valorant 27−30
+155%
11
−155%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Dota 2 10−12
+57.1%
7
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Valorant 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 1−2
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

This is how FX 880M and UHD Graphics 600 compete in popular games:

  • FX 880M is 100% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 880M is 155% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the UHD Graphics 600 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 880M is ahead in 4 tests (13%)
  • UHD Graphics 600 is ahead in 15 tests (48%)
  • there's a draw in 12 tests (39%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.51 0.75
Recency 7 January 2010 11 December 2017
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 5 Watt

UHD Graphics 600 has a 47.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics 600 is a mobile 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 Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M
Intel UHD Graphics 600
UHD Graphics 600

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.


3.3
43 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3
3733 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 880M or UHD Graphics 600, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.