GeForce GT 320 vs Quadro FX 3600M
GeForce GT 320
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 3600M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce GT 320 is positioned at rank 201 and the Quadro FX 3600M is on rank 65, so the Quadro FX 3600M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 320
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 3600M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GT 320 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). The GeForce GT 320 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3600M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GT 320 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 3600M.
| Insight | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GT 320 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 320 and Quadro FX 3600M
GeForce GT 320
The GeForce GT 320 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1228 MHz to 1468 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 470 points. Launch price was $79.
Quadro FX 3600M
The Quadro FX 3600M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 467 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 320 scores 470 and the Quadro FX 3600M reaches 467 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 320 is built on Pascal while the Quadro FX 3600M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 320) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3600M). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3600M).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 470 | 467 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+60% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.127 TFLOPS+81% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GT 320 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 3600M has 512 MB. The GeForce GT 320 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GeForce GT 320) vs 256 KB (Quadro FX 3600M) — the GeForce GT 320 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce GT 320) vs 10 (Quadro FX 3600M). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GT 320) vs None (Quadro FX 3600M). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs PureVideo HD (VP2). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 320) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Quadro FX 3600M).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | PureVideo HD (VP2) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 320 draws 30W versus the Quadro FX 3600M's 189W — a 145.2% difference. The GeForce GT 320 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 250W (GeForce GT 320) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3600M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 175mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 85.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-84% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 250W-29% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 175mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75-12% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 15.7+528% | 2.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 320 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | Quadro FX 3600M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $79 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | — |
| Codename | GP108 | GT200B |
| Release | May 17 2017 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #641 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 320 and Quadro FX 3600M
