GeForce GT 220 vs Quadro K600

Place in performance ranking	867	1175
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.15	no data
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	GK107	GT216
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 March 2013 (11 years ago)	12 October 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$79.99
Current price	$220 (1.1x MSRP)	$121 (1.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K600 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	192	48
CUDA cores	no data	48
Core clock speed	876 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	41 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	14.02	9.840
Floating-point performance	336.4 gflops	144 gflops

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 support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	160 mm	6.6" (16.8 cm)
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1782 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.51 GB/s	25.3 GB/s

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	1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF + HDA

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	3.0	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Quadro K600 1.92
+243%

GT 220 0.56

Quadro K600 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 243% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro K600 742
+242%

GT 220 217

Quadro K600 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 242% in Passmark.

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

70−75
+233%

−233%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+233%

3−4
−233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +243%	7−8 −243%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +243%	7−8 −243%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +233%	12−14 −233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +243%	7−8 −243%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	18−20 +200%	6−7 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%