Quadro 410 vs Quadro P600

Place in the ranking	498	1075
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.84	0.12
Power efficiency	14.75	2.06
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP107	GK107
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	7 February 2017 (7 years ago)	7 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$178	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P600 has 5600% better value for money than Quadro 410.

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	706 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	38 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.88	11.30
Floating-point processing power	1.244 TFLOPS	0.2711 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
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	176 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	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1252 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80.13 GB/s	14.26 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

1x DVI, 1x 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 8.60
+654%

Quadro 410 1.14

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
+657%

Quadro 410 438

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 10628
+635%

Quadro 410 1446

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

34
+750%

4−5

−750%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

5.24

37.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+1200%

1−2

−1200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +714%	7−8 −714%
Hitman 3	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +700%	6−7 −700%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +729%	7−8 −729%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +714%	7−8 −714%
Hitman 3	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +700%	6−7 −700%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +729%	7−8 −729%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +714%	7−8 −714%
Hitman 3	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +700%	6−7 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +729%	7−8 −729%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+700%

3−4
−700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +671%	7−8 −671%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+1300%

1−2

−1300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +725%	4−5 −725%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+700%

1−2

−700%

This is how Quadro P600 and Quadro 410 compete in popular games:

Quadro P600 is 750% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.60	1.14
Recency	7 February 2017	7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	38 Watt

Quadro P600 has a 654.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 410, on the other hand, has 5.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.

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