Quadro K600 vs Quadro M4000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000M with Quadro K600, including specs and performance data.

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
15.94
+739%

M4000M outperforms K600 by a whopping 739% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking338908
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.26
Power efficiency11.103.23
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGM204GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

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 cores1,280192
Core clock speed975 MHz876 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0014.02
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS0.3364 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs8016

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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA5.23.0

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.

M4000M 15.94
+739%
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.

M4000M 6148
+740%
Quadro K600 732

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.

M4000M 19892
+992%
Quadro K600 1822

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

M4000M 21133
+987%
Quadro K600 1944

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.

M4000M 53
+960%
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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD68
+750%
8−9
−750%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data24.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+758%
12−14
−758%
Hitman 3 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+817%
6−7
−817%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+758%
12−14
−758%
Hitman 3 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+817%
6−7
−817%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+758%
12−14
−758%
Hitman 3 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+780%
5−6
−780%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+750%
10−11
−750%
Hitman 3 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+880%
10−11
−880%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+800%
9−10
−800%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

This is how M4000M and Quadro K600 compete in popular games:

  • M4000M is 750% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.94 1.90
Recency 18 August 2015 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 41 Watt

M4000M has a 738.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K600, on the other hand, has 143.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation 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 Quadro M4000M
Quadro M4000M
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.


4.1 144 votes

Rate Quadro M4000M 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.