Arc Pro A60 vs Quadro 400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 400 and Arc Pro A60, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 400
2011, $169
512 MB DDR3, 32 Watt
0.35

Pro A60 outperforms 400 by a whopping 6386% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1337276
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.8413.41
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT216DG2-256
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date5 April 2011 (14 years ago)6 June 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169 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

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 cores482048
Core clock speed450 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors486 million11,500 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200262.4
Floating-point processing power0.108 TFLOPS8.397 TFLOPS
ROPs864
TMUs16128
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L2 Cache32 KB12 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 x16
Length163 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
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 amount512 MB12 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed770 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.32 GB/s384.0 GB/s
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 DisplayPort4x DisplayPort 2.0

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.2-
DLSS-+

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 400 0.35
Arc Pro A60 22.70
+6386%

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 400 148
Samples: 126
Arc Pro A60 9493
+6314%
Samples: 11

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.35 22.70
Recency 5 April 2011 6 June 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 12 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 130 Watt

Quadro 400 has 306.3% lower power consumption.

Arc Pro A60, on the other hand, has a 6385.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc Pro A60 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 400 in performance tests.

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 Quadro 400
Quadro 400
Intel Arc Pro A60
Arc Pro A60

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.


3.2 16 votes

Rate Quadro 400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 25 votes

Rate Arc Pro A60 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 400 or Arc Pro A60, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.