Radeon RX 6600 XT vs Quadro K510M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K510M with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.
6600 XT outperforms K510M by a whopping 2471% 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 | 1015 | 125 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 78 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 51.98 |
| Power efficiency | 3.93 | 18.93 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 30 July 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $379 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 192 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 846 MHz | 1968 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2589 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.54 | 331.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3249 TFLOPS | 10.6 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 190 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 19.2 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 4−5
−3000%
| 124
+3000%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−3300%
| 68
+3300%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3900%
| 40
+3900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.06 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.57 |
| 4K | no data | 9.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2533%
|
79
+2533%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−10700%
|
100−110
+10700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−4367%
|
130−140
+4367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2500%
|
78
+2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−4933%
|
151
+4933%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−3320%
|
170−180
+3320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1600%
|
150−160
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7850%
|
159
+7850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1450%
|
150−160
+1450%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−557%
|
230−240
+557%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−4367%
|
130−140
+4367%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 210−220 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−721%
|
270−280
+721%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2433%
|
76
+2433%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−795%
|
170
+795%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−4600%
|
141
+4600%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−3320%
|
170−180
+3320%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1600%
|
150−160
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−7000%
|
142
+7000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−13400%
|
135
+13400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4650%
|
95
+4650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1450%
|
150−160
+1450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2414%
|
176
+2414%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−557%
|
230−240
+557%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−4367%
|
130−140
+4367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2200%
|
69
+2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−532%
|
120
+532%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−4333%
|
133
+4333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1600%
|
150−160
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1450%
|
150−160
+1450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1314%
|
99
+1314%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−557%
|
230−240
+557%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−3320%
|
170−180
+3320%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2425%
|
100−110
+2425%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−2436%
|
270−280
+2436%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−994%
|
170−180
+994%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−3629%
|
260−270
+3629%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5150%
|
105
+5150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2433%
|
75−80
+2433%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−5200%
|
100−110
+5200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−357%
|
64
+357%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−3357%
|
240−250
+3357%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−4200%
|
86
+4200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K510M and RX 6600 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6600 XT is 3000% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600 XT is 3300% faster in 1440p
- RX 6600 XT is 3900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6600 XT is 13400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6600 XT performs better in 46 tests (81%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.53 | 39.34 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 30 July 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 160 Watt |
Quadro K510M has 433% lower power consumption.
RX 6600 XT, on the other hand, has a 2471% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K510M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K510M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT 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.
