Quadro P400 vs GeForce GTX 675M SLI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 675M SLI with Quadro P400, including specs and performance data.

GTX 675M SLI
2011
2 Watt
7.90
+101%

675M SLI outperforms P400 by a whopping 101% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking557741
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.97
Power efficiency3.0610.15
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameN12E-GTX2GP107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date6 January 2011 (14 years ago)7 February 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$119.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores768256
Core clock speed620 MHz1228 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1252 MHz
Number of transistorsno data3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)2x 100 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rateno data20.03
Floating-point processing powerno data0.641 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data16
L1 Cacheno data96 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed3000 MHz1002 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data32.06 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectorsno data3x mini-DisplayPort

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.

DirectX1112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA+6.1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Fortnite 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
Valorant 80−85
+108%
40−45
−108%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+112%
60−65
−112%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Dota 2 60−65
+103%
30−33
−103%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Fortnite 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Valorant 80−85
+108%
40−45
−108%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Dota 2 60−65
+103%
30−33
−103%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+106%
16−18
−106%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+107%
14−16
−107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%
Valorant 80−85
+108%
40−45
−108%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+104%
24−27
−104%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+107%
30−33
−107%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%
Valorant 90−95
+125%
40−45
−125%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+111%
9−10
−111%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Valorant 40−45
+133%
18−20
−133%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.90 3.93
Recency 6 January 2011 7 February 2017
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 2 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 675M SLI has a 101% higher aggregate performance score, and 1400% lower power consumption.

Quadro P400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 675M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 675M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P400 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M SLI
GeForce GTX 675M SLI
NVIDIA Quadro P400
Quadro P400

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.


2.5 4 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 675M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 526 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 675M SLI or Quadro P400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.