Quadro K600 vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregated performance score
We've compared laptop GPU Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with workstation GPU Quadro K600, including specs and performance data.
Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms Quadro K600 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 733 | 863 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.14 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (6 years ago) | 1 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
| Current price | no data | $220 (1.1x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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 | no data | 876 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 14.02 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 336.4 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Quadro K600 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1782 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | + |
| CUDA | no data | 3.0 |
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
+66.7%
| 9−10
−66.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Quadro K600 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 66.7% faster than Quadro K600 in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.03 | 1.92 |
| Recency | 7 January 2018 | 1 March 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 41 Watt |
The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K600 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while Quadro K600 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
