Quadro 600 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile

Place in the ranking	409	1011
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.09
Power efficiency	10.73	2.39
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GP107B	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	3 January 2017 (7 years ago)	13 December 2010 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$179

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 cores	640	96
Core clock speed	1354 MHz	640 MHz
Boost clock speed	1493 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	97 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	59.72	10.24
Floating-point processing power	1.911 TFLOPS	0.2458 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	40	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4000 MB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	7008 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112 GB/s	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	DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDCP	2.2	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream	+	-
GPU Boost	3.0	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

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:

900p	73 +813%	8−9 −813%
Full HD	46 +820%	5−6 −820%
1440p	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
4K	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	35.80
1440p	no data	89.50
4K	no data	179.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	37 +825%	4−5 −825%
Battlefield 5	51 +750%	6−7 −750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40 +900%	4−5 −900%
Far Cry 5	39 +875%	4−5 −875%
Far Cry New Dawn	38 +850%	4−5 −850%
Forza Horizon 4	55 +817%	6−7 −817%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +900%	3−4 −900%
Battlefield 5	44 +780%	5−6 −780%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Far Cry 5	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	37 +825%	4−5 −825%
Forza Horizon 4	52 +767%	6−7 −767%
Metro Exodus	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	29 +867%	3−4 −867%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	39 +875%	4−5 −875%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Battlefield 5	37 +825%	4−5 −825%
Far Cry 5	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	37 +825%	4−5 −825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +1000%	2−3 −1000%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Metro Exodus	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +750%	2−3 −750%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Battlefield 5	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Far Cry 5	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	26 +767%	3−4 −767%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Metro Exodus	7	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7	0−1
Battlefield 5	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Far Cry 5	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

This is how GTX 1050 Mobile and Quadro 600 compete in popular games:

GTX 1050 Mobile is 813% faster in 900p
GTX 1050 Mobile is 820% faster in 1080p
GTX 1050 Mobile is 1100% faster in 1440p
GTX 1050 Mobile is 1400% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.63	1.38
Recency	3 January 2017	13 December 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4000 MB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt

GTX 1050 Mobile has a 742.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 290.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 600, on the other hand, has 87.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 600 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is a notebook 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.