Quadro 600 vs Quadro M2200

Place in the ranking	431	1023
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.15
Power efficiency	13.83	2.37
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM206	GF108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	13 December 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$179

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	1024	96
Core clock speed	695 MHz	640 MHz
Boost clock speed	1036 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,940 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	66.30	10.24
Floating-point processing power	2.122 TFLOPS	0.2458 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	64	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1377 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	88 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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
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 Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.2	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.

Quadro M2200 10.60
+703%

Quadro 600 1.32

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 M2200 4243
+701%

Quadro 600 530

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.

Quadro M2200 13205
+528%

Quadro 600 2102

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	43 +760%	5−6 −760%
4K	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	35.80
4K	no data	179.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
Valorant	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Dota 2	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Fortnite	60−65 +814%	7−8 −814%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 +875%	4−5 −875%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +900%	3−4 −900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +740%	10−11 −740%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +867%	3−4 −867%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +725%	4−5 −725%
Valorant	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
World of Tanks	150−160 +761%	18−20 −761%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Dota 2	40−45 +900%	4−5 −900%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +740%	10−11 −740%
Valorant	40−45 +760%	5−6 −760%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Dota 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +757%	7−8 −757%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
World of Tanks	75−80 +778%	9−10 −778%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9	0−1
Far Cry 5	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Valorant	27−30 +800%	3−4 −800%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−35 +967%	3−4 −967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Fortnite	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9	0−1
Valorant	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

This is how Quadro M2200 and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:

Quadro M2200 is 760% faster in 1080p
Quadro M2200 is 1300% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.60	1.32
Recency	11 January 2017	13 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	40 Watt

Quadro M2200 has a 703% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 600, on the other hand, has 37.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro 600 is a workstation one.