Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Quadro M600M
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M600M
2015
2GB GDDR5
5.54
+38.8%
GTX 550 Ti
2011
2048 MB GDDR5
3.99
Quadro M600M outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 39% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 567 | 651 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 57 |
| Value for money | 3.05 | 0.28 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years old) | 15 March 2011 (13 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $103 | $197 (1.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Quadro M600M has 989% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 837 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 116 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 14.02 | 28.8 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 691.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro M600M and GeForce GTX 550 Ti compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 8.25" (21 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | One 6-pin |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 98.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 M600M outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 39% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro M600M outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 39% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro M600M outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 24% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro M600M outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 28% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
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:
| 900p | 50−55
+31.6%
| 38
−31.6%
|
| Full HD | 17
−118%
| 37
+118%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro M600M and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- Quadro M600M is 31.6% faster than GTX 550 Ti
1080p resolution:
- GTX 550 Ti is 118% faster than Quadro M600M
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M600M is 300% faster than the GTX 550 Ti.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 12.5% faster than the Quadro M600M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M600M is ahead in 58 tests (97%)
- GTX 550 Ti is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 5.54 | 3.99 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 15 March 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 116 Watt |
The Quadro M600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M600M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
