Radeon Pro W6600 vs Quadro NVS 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 320M with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.

NVS 320M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 20 Watt
0.50

Pro W6600 outperforms NVS 320M by a whopping 7104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1274149
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data27.51
Power efficiency1.9027.44
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG84Navi 23
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date9 June 2007 (18 years ago)8 June 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores321792
Core clock speed575 MHz2331 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2903 MHz
Number of transistors289 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate9.200325.1
Floating-point processing power0.0736 TFLOPS10.4 TFLOPS
ROPs864
TMUs16112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth22.4 GB/s224.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA1.1-

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.

NVS 320M 0.50
Pro W6600 36.02
+7104%

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.

NVS 320M 208
Pro W6600 15096
+7158%

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

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%
God of War 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%
God of War 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−6775%
550−600
+6775%
Valorant 27−30
−6937%
1900−1950
+6937%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−6959%
1200−1250
+6959%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%
Dota 2 10−12
−6718%
750−800
+6718%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%
God of War 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−6775%
550−600
+6775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
Valorant 27−30
−6937%
1900−1950
+6937%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%
Dota 2 10−12
−6718%
750−800
+6718%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%
God of War 4−5
−6900%
280−290
+6900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−6775%
550−600
+6775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
Valorant 27−30
−6937%
1900−1950
+6937%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−6900%
140−150
+6900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
−6900%
70−75
+6900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−6900%
140−150
+6900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6900%
1050−1100
+6900%
Valorant 3−4
−6900%
210−220
+6900%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−6900%
140−150
+6900%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−6900%
140−150
+6900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.50 36.02
Recency 9 June 2007 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 100 Watt

NVS 320M has 400% lower power consumption.

Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 7104% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 320M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro NVS 320M
Quadro NVS 320M
AMD Radeon Pro W6600
Radeon Pro W6600

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.3 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 95 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 320M or Radeon Pro W6600, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.