Arc A370M vs Quadro K600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K600 with Arc A370M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K600
2013, $199
1 GB DDR3, 41 Watt
1.72

A370M outperforms K600 by a whopping 614% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking994451
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.11no data
Power efficiency3.2527.14
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Xe-HPG (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 March 2013 (13 years ago)30 March 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores1921024
Core clock speed876 MHz1550 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate14.02131.2
Floating-point processing power0.3364 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1632
TMUs1664
Ray Tracing Coresno data8
L1 Cache16 KB1.5 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length160 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s112.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.4
CUDA3.0-

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.

Quadro K600 1.72
Arc A370M 12.28
+614%

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.

Quadro K600 716
Samples: 1290
Arc A370M 5115
+614%
Samples: 2

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 HD5−6
−680%
39
+680%
1440p2−3
−900%
20
+900%
4K4−5
−750%
34
+750%

Cost per frame, $

1080p39.80no data
1440p99.50no data
4K49.75no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 46
+0%
46
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 37
+0%
37
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Dota 2 68
+0%
68
+0%
Far Cry 5 46
+0%
46
+0%
Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Dota 2 66
+0%
66
+0%
Far Cry 5 43
+0%
43
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Palworld 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
+0%
11
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 29
+0%
29
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Palworld 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Quadro K600 and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A370M is 680% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A370M is 900% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A370M is 750% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.72 12.28
Recency 1 March 2013 30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 35 Watt

Arc A370M has a 614% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 17% lower power consumption.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K600 is a workstation graphics card while Arc A370M is a notebook one.

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.


2.8 218 votes

Rate Quadro K600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 208 votes

Rate Arc A370M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K600 or Arc A370M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.