Quadro FX 3600M vs GeForce GT 320
Quadro FX 3600M
Popular choices:
GeForce GT 320
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 Quadro FX 3600M is positioned at rank 65 and the GeForce GT 320 is on rank 201, 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 Quadro FX 3600M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 320
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 | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 Quadro FX 3600M and GeForce GT 320
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3600M scores 467 and the GeForce GT 320 reaches 470 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3600M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce GT 320 uses Pascal, both on 55 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 384 (GeForce GT 320). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 467 | 470 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 384+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 1.127 TFLOPS+81% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+233% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro FX 3600M comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GT 320 has 1 GB. 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: 256 KB (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 512 KB (GeForce GT 320) — the GeForce GT 320 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10 (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 10.1 (GeForce GT 320). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10 | 10.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Quadro FX 3600M) vs None (GeForce GT 320). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP2) vs PureVideo HD (VP4). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Quadro FX 3600M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 320).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP2) | PureVideo HD (VP4) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3600M draws 189W versus the GeForce GT 320's 30W — a 145.2% difference. The GeForce GT 320 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 250W (GeForce GT 320). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 175mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 75.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 30W-84% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 250W-29% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 175mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 75-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 2.5 | 15.7+528% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 320 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $79 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $30 |
| Codename | GT200B | GP108 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #815 | #641 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3600M and GeForce GT 320
