Quadro 600 vs Quadro M520

Place in the ranking	637	1014
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.15
Power efficiency	13.38	2.35
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM108	GF108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	13 December 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$179

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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	384	96
Core clock speed	1041 MHz	640 MHz
Boost clock speed	1019 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	16.66	10.24
Floating-point processing power	0.7995 TFLOPS	0.2458 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	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	medium sized	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	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40 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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M520 4.88
+256%

Quadro 600 1.37

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 M520 1881
+256%

Quadro 600 529

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 M520 6059
+188%

Quadro 600 2104

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	19 +280%	5−6 −280%
4K	12 +300%	3−4 −300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	35.80
4K	no data	59.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%
Hitman 3	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +283%	12−14 −283%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%
Hitman 3	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +310%	10−11 −310%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +283%	12−14 −283%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%
Hitman 3	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +300%	8−9 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +260%	5−6 −260%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +283%	12−14 −283%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+333%

3−4
−333%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Hitman 3	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +288%	8−9 −288%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

This is how Quadro M520 and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:

Quadro M520 is 280% faster in 1080p
Quadro M520 is 300% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.88	1.37
Recency	11 January 2017	13 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	40 Watt

Quadro M520 has a 256.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M520 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro 600 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.