Quadro 600 vs GeForce GTX 470
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 470 with Quadro 600, including specs and performance data.
GTX 470 outperforms 600 by a whopping 492% 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 | 533 | 1033 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.18 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 2.57 | 2.34 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 13 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 470 has 687% better value for money than Quadro 600.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 448 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 640 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 34.05 | 10.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 0.2458 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 16 |
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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 1280 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1674 MHz (3348 data rate) | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 133.9 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 52
+550%
| 8−9
−550%
|
| Full HD | 65
+550%
| 10−12
−550%
|
| 1200p | 53
+563%
| 8−9
−563%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.37
+233%
| 17.90
−233%
|
- GTX 470 has 233% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+558%
|
12−14
−558%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+567%
|
18−20
−567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+544%
|
9−10
−544%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+558%
|
12−14
−558%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Dota 2 | 64
+540%
|
10−11
−540%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+558%
|
12−14
−558%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+544%
|
9−10
−544%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+514%
|
14−16
−514%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
This is how GTX 470 and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:
- GTX 470 is 550% faster in 900p
- GTX 470 is 550% faster in 1080p
- GTX 470 is 563% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.98 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 13 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 40 Watt |
GTX 470 has a 491.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro 600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and 437.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 470 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 470 is a desktop 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.
