Quadro 600 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile with Quadro 600, including specs and performance data.
1050 Mobile outperforms 600 by a whopping 759% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 487 | 1103 |
| Place by popularity | 76 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 10.99 | 2.40 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107B | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (9 years ago) | 13 December 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 640 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 59.72 | 10.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.911 TFLOPS | 0.2458 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 256 KB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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:
| 900p | 73
+813%
| 8−9
−813%
|
| Full HD | 46
+820%
| 5−6
−820%
|
| 1440p | 24
+1100%
| 2−3
−1100%
|
| 4K | 15
+1400%
| 1−2
−1400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 35.80 |
| 1440p | no data | 89.50 |
| 4K | no data | 179.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
| Fortnite | 132
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+778%
|
18−20
−778%
|
| Dota 2 | 126
+800%
|
14−16
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Fortnite | 51
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+767%
|
6−7
−767%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Dota 2 | 115
+858%
|
12−14
−858%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 39
+875%
|
4−5
−875%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+800%
|
9−10
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 34
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Mobile and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 813% faster in 900p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 820% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 1100% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 1400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.65 | 1.24 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 13 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
GTX 1050 Mobile has a 759% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 291% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 600, on the other hand, has 88% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 600 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
