Quadro K600 vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Apple M1 8-Core GPU with Quadro K600, including specs and performance data.

Apple M1 8-Core GPU
2020
14.54
+665%

Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms K600 by a whopping 665% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking356907
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.26
Power efficiencyno data3.23
Architectureno dataKepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameno dataGK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date10 November 2020 (4 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores8192
Core clock speed1278 MHz876 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data41 Watt
Texture fill rateno data14.02
Floating-point processing powerno data0.3364 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data16

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data891 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data28.51 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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectXno data12 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-+
CUDA-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 HD28
+833%
3−4
−833%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data66.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+667%
12−14
−667%
Hitman 3 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+700%
9−10
−700%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+683%
6−7
−683%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+744%
9−10
−744%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+667%
12−14
−667%
Hitman 3 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+700%
9−10
−700%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+683%
6−7
−683%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+744%
9−10
−744%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+725%
4−5
−725%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+667%
12−14
−667%
Hitman 3 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+700%
9−10
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+667%
6−7
−667%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+750%
4−5
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+744%
9−10
−744%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+700%
9−10
−700%
Hitman 3 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+770%
10−11
−770%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+667%
9−10
−667%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and Quadro K600 compete in popular games:

  • Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 833% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.54 1.90
Recency 10 November 2020 1 March 2013
Chip lithography 5 nm 28 nm

Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 665.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Apple M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Apple M1 8-Core GPU
M1 8-Core GPU
NVIDIA Quadro K600
Quadro K600

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 915 votes

Rate Apple M1 8-Core GPU on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 198 votes

Rate Quadro K600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.