Quadro M600M vs Quadro RTX 4000

Place in the ranking	110	605
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	36.82	no data
Power efficiency	17.06	12.96
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	TU104	GM107
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	13 November 2018 (6 years ago)	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$899	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 cores	2304	384
Core clock speed	1005 MHz	837 MHz
Boost clock speed	1545 MHz	876 MHz
Number of transistors	13,600 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	222.5	14.02
Floating-point processing power	7.119 TFLOPS	0.6728 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	144	16
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	no data

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 size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	None

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1625 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	416.0 GB/s	80 GB/s
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 Connectors	3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C	No outputs
Display Port	no data	1.2

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.

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
CUDA	7.5	5.0

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.

RTX 4000 39.65
+602%

Quadro M600M 5.65

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.

RTX 4000 15245
+602%

Quadro M600M 2171

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.

RTX 4000 85828
+1335%

Quadro M600M 5983

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

130−140
+584%

−584%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.92

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Elden Ring	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
World of Tanks	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Fortnite	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how RTX 4000 and Quadro M600M compete in popular games:

RTX 4000 is 584% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.65	5.65
Recency	13 November 2018	18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	160 Watt	30 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 601.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro M600M, on the other hand, has 433.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation card while Quadro M600M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.