Quadro K600 vs GeForce GTX 480

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 480 with Quadro K600, including specs and performance data.

GTX 480
2010
1536 MB GDDR5, 250 Watt
10.64
+460%

GTX 480 outperforms K600 by a whopping 460% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking431907
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.640.26
Power efficiency2.973.23
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF100GK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date26 March 2010 (14 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 480 has 531% better value for money than Quadro K600.

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 cores480192
Core clock speed700 MHz876 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt41 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate42.0614.02
Floating-point processing power1.345 TFLOPS0.3364 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs6016

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).

Bus support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm160 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1848 MHz (3696 data rate)891 MHz
Memory bandwidth177.4 GB/s28.51 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA+3.0

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 480 10.64
+460%
Quadro K600 1.90

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 480 4106
+460%
Quadro K600 733

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 480 13123
+617%
Quadro K600 1829

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

GTX 480 54
+980%
Quadro K600 5

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+492%
12−14
−492%
Hitman 3 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+480%
10−11
−480%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+550%
10−11
−550%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+560%
5−6
−560%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+492%
12−14
−492%
Hitman 3 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+480%
10−11
−480%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+550%
10−11
−550%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+492%
12−14
−492%
Hitman 3 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+480%
10−11
−480%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+550%
10−11
−550%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+500%
5−6
−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Hitman 3 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+570%
10−11
−570%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+488%
8−9
−488%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.64 1.90
Recency 26 March 2010 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 41 Watt

GTX 480 has a 460% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 509.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K600 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 480 is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
GeForce GTX 480
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.


3.3 211 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 480 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.