Quadro P3200 vs Quadro 600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 600 with Quadro P3200, including specs and performance data.
P3200 outperforms 600 by a whopping 1548% 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 | 1100 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.40 | 21.08 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 December 2010 (15 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | no data |
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 | 96 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.24 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2458 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1536 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 168.3 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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 HD | 5−6
−1580%
| 84
+1580%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2700%
| 28
+2700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 35.80 | no data |
| 4K | 179.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 600 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 1580% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 2700% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 20.44 |
| Recency | 13 December 2010 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro 600 has 88% lower power consumption.
Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 1548% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 600 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro P3200 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
