ATI Radeon HD 4250 vs Quadro 600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 600 with Radeon HD 4250, including specs and performance data.
600 outperforms ATI HD 4250 by a whopping 339% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1023 | 1323 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
Power efficiency | 2.37 | 0.86 |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
GPU code name | GF108 | RV620 |
Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 13 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 25 February 2009 (15 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 40 |
Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 594 MHz |
Number of transistors | 585 million | 181 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 25 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 10.24 | 2.376 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.2458 TFLOPS | 0.04752 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 8 | 4 |
TMUs | 16 | 4 |
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).
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 168 mm | no data |
Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
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 | DDR2 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 396 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 6.336 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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
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.
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 Preset
Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 33 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.36 | 0.31 |
Recency | 13 December 2010 | 25 February 2009 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 25 Watt |
Quadro 600 has a 338.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4250, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 600 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 4250 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.