NVS 510 vs Quadro P600

Place in the ranking	500	925
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.70	0.11
Power efficiency	14.87	3.53
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP107	GK107
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	7 February 2017 (7 years ago)	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$178	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P600 has 5991% better value for money than NVS 510.

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	192
Core clock speed	1430 MHz	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	1620 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.88	12.75
Floating-point processing power	1.244 TFLOPS	0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	24	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	160 mm
Width	1-slot	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	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1252 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80.13 GB/s	28.51 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

Portable Device Dependent

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.7	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.1.126
CUDA	6.1	3.0

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 P600 8.62
+382%

NVS 510 1.79

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 P600 3314
+380%

NVS 510 690

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 P600 10595
+523%

NVS 510 1702

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P600 9751
+427%

NVS 510 1852

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P600 10634
+729%

NVS 510 1282

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

36
+414%

7−8

−414%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.94
+1197%

64.14

−1197%

Quadro P600 has 1197% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Elden Ring	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +460%	5−6 −460%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +386%	7−8 −386%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Valorant	30−35 +417%	6−7 −417%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +460%	5−6 −460%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Dota 2	27 +440%	5−6 −440%
Elden Ring	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%
Fortnite	50−55 +410%	10−11 −410%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +386%	7−8 −386%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 +400%	6−7 −400%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +475%	4−5 −475%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95 +428%	18−20 −428%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +420%	5−6 −420%
Valorant	30−35 +417%	6−7 −417%
World of Tanks	120−130 +433%	24−27 −433%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +460%	5−6 −460%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Dota 2	72 +414%	14−16 −414%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +429%	7−8 −429%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +386%	7−8 −386%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +386%	14−16 −386%
Valorant	30−35 +417%	6−7 −417%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Elden Ring	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +425%	8−9 −425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
World of Tanks	60−65 +417%	12−14 −417%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Valorant	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Elden Ring	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Fortnite	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Valorant	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

This is how Quadro P600 and NVS 510 compete in popular games:

Quadro P600 is 414% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.62	1.79
Recency	7 February 2017	23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	35 Watt

Quadro P600 has a 381.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has 14.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P600 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

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