Quadro 600 vs Radeon HD 7660D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7660D with Quadro 600, including specs and performance data.
600 outperforms HD 7660D by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1034 | 1020 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 0.91 | 2.38 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $122 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro 600 has 50% better value for money than HD 7660D.
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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 640 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 10.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6144 TFLOPS | 0.2458 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 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 | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | IGP | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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. 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.
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.
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 | 15
+7.1%
| 14−16
−7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.13
+57.2%
| 12.79
−57.2%
|
- HD 7660D has 57% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 54
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD 7660D and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:
- HD 7660D is 7% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.23 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 13 December 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 40 Watt |
HD 7660D has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 600, on the other hand, has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 150% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 7660D and Quadro 600.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7660D is a desktop card while Quadro 600 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
