UHD Graphics 600 vs Quadro FX 1800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 1800 with UHD Graphics 600, including specs and performance data.

FX 1800
2009
768 MB GDDR3, 59 Watt
1.03
+18.4%

FX 1800 outperforms UHD Graphics 600 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10951123
Place by popularitynot in top-10050
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.2112.05
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameG94Gemini Lake GT1
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date30 March 2009 (15 years ago)11 December 2017 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$489 no data

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 cores6496
Core clock speed550 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data650 MHz
Number of transistors505 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)59 Watt5 Watt
Texture fill rate17.607.800
Floating-point processing power0.176 TFLOPS0.1248 TFLOPS
ROPs122
TMUs3212

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount768 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width192 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A+
CUDA1.1-

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.

FX 1800 1.03
+18.4%
UHD Graphics 600 0.87

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.

FX 1800 398
+19.2%
UHD Graphics 600 334

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 HD10−12
+11.1%
9
−11.1%
1440p1−2
+0%
1
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p48.90no data
1440p489.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 13
+0%
13
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 11
+0%
11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6
+0%
6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4
+0%
4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 1800 and UHD Graphics 600 compete in popular games:

  • FX 1800 is 11% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 38 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.03 0.87
Recency 30 March 2009 11 December 2017
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 59 Watt 5 Watt

FX 1800 has a 18.4% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1080% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 1800 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 600 is a desktop 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 Quadro FX 1800
Quadro FX 1800
Intel UHD Graphics 600
UHD Graphics 600

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.


3.5 131 vote

Rate Quadro FX 1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 3480 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 600 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.