Radeon Pro W6600 vs Quadro NVS 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 320M with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600 outperforms NVS 320M by a whopping 7098% 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 | 1277 | 149 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 27.27 |
| Power efficiency | 1.91 | 27.44 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G84 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 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.
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 | 32 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.200 | 325.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0736 TFLOPS | 10.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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-HE | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | 224.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+6900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6900%
|
280−290
+6900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−6900%
|
350−400
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
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 | 35.99 |
| 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 7098% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
