UHD Graphics 600 vs Quadro FX 5600

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5600 with UHD Graphics 600, including specs and performance data.

FX 5600
2007
1536 MB GDDR3, 171 Watt
1.36
+56.3%

FX 5600 outperforms UHD Graphics 600 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10151128
Place by popularitynot in top-10050
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.5512.13
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameG80Gemini Lake GT1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)11 December 2017 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 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 cores12896
Core clock speed600 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data650 MHz
Number of transistors681 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)171 Watt5 Watt
Texture fill rate38.407.800
Floating-point processing power0.3456 TFLOPS0.1248 TFLOPS
ROPs242
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 1.0 x16Ring Bus
Length254 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 amount1536 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth76.8 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoPortable 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+
CUDA+-

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 5600 1.36
+56.3%
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 5600 525
+57.2%
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 HD14−16
+40%
10
−40%
1440p1−2
+0%
1
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p214.21no data
1440p2999.00no 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 5600 and UHD Graphics 600 compete in popular games:

  • FX 5600 is 40% 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 1.36 0.87
Recency 5 March 2007 11 December 2017
Chip lithography 90 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 171 Watt 5 Watt

FX 5600 has a 56.3% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 3320% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 5600 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 5600 is a workstation card while UHD Graphics 600 is a notebook 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 5600
Quadro FX 5600
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.


3.4 5 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 3500 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.