Quadro P600 vs GeForce GTX 285

Place in the ranking	693	492
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	7.16
Power efficiency	1.33	14.82
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GT200B	GP107
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)	7 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	$178

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P600 has 2552% better value for money than GTX 285.

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	240	384
Core clock speed	648 MHz	1430 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1620 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	40 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	38.88
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	1.244 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	80	24

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	145 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	1252 MHz
Memory bandwidth	159.0 GB/s	80.13 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

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

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.7
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	6.1

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.

GTX 285 3.92

Quadro P600 8.56
+118%

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.

GTX 285 1513

Quadro P600 3304
+118%

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

16−18

−131%

37
+131%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

22.44

4.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Hitman 3	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Hitman 3	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Hitman 3	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

+0%

8−9

+0%

This is how GTX 285 and Quadro P600 compete in popular games:

Quadro P600 is 131% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.92	8.56
Recency	23 December 2008	7 February 2017
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	40 Watt

Quadro P600 has a 118.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 410% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285 is a desktop card while Quadro P600 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.