Quadro NVS 5100M vs Quadro P600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P600 with Quadro NVS 5100M, including specs and performance data.
P600 outperforms NVS 5100M by a whopping 820% 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 | 542 | 1168 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.59 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.06 | 1.87 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GT2xx (2010) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | N10P-NS |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (8 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $178 | no data |
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 | 384 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1430 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.88 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1252 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.13 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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
+1100%
| 3−4
−1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.94 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+173%
|
30−33
−173%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+448%
|
21−24
−448%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 81
+479%
|
14−16
−479%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+173%
|
30−33
−173%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 72
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+173%
|
30−33
−173%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+1140%
|
5−6
−1140%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+900%
|
9−10
−900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how Quadro P600 and NVS 5100M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P600 is 1100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P600 is 2500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P600 surpassed NVS 5100M in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.91 | 0.86 |
| Recency | 7 February 2017 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 35 Watt |
Quadro P600 has a 819.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 5100M, on the other hand, has 14.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P600 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro NVS 5100M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
