Quadro NVS 285 vs Radeon RX 7600

Place in the ranking	88	1444
Place by popularity	100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	90.94	no data
Power efficiency	17.93	0.42
Architecture	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	Navi 33	NV44 A2
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	24 May 2023 (1 year ago)	6 June 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$269	$27.99

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	2048	no data
Core clock speed	1720 MHz	275 MHz
Boost clock speed	2655 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	13,300 million	75 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	165 Watt	18 Watt
Texture fill rate	339.8	1.100
Floating-point processing power	21.75 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	2
TMUs	128	4
Ray Tracing Cores	32	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).

Interface	PCIe 4.0 x8	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	204 mm	168 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
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	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	128 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2250 MHz	250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288.0 GB/s	8 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 Connectors	1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1	1x DMS-59
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	6.7	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.2	N/A
Vulkan	1.3	N/A

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.

RX 7600 43.02
+39009%

NVS 285 0.11

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.

RX 7600 16582
+39381%

NVS 285 42

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	142	-0−1
1440p	67	-0−1
4K	35	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	1.89	no data
1440p	4.01	no data
4K	7.69	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

148

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	90−95	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	70−75	0−1
Battlefield 5	130−140	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	117	0−1
Far Cry 5	90−95	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	100−110	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	190−200	0−1
Hitman 3	90−95	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180	0−1
Metro Exodus	130−140	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	90−95	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	70−75	0−1
Battlefield 5	130−140	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	100	0−1
Far Cry 5	90−95	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	100−110	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	190−200	0−1
Hitman 3	90−95	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180	0−1
Metro Exodus	130−140	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	230	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140	0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	90−95	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	70−75	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	90	0−1
Far Cry 5	90−95	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	190−200	0−1
Hitman 3	90−95	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	172	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	199	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	123	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140	0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

95−100

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	45−50	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	56	0−1
Far Cry 5	45−50	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	230−240	0−1
Hitman 3	55−60	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	127	0−1
Metro Exodus	118	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	129	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	86	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	200−210	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

70−75

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40	0−1
Hitman 3	35−40	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	190−200	0−1
Metro Exodus	55−60	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	59	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27−30	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	24	0−1
Far Cry 5	24−27	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	55−60	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	69	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	43.02	0.11
Recency	24 May 2023	6 June 2006
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	128 MB
Chip lithography	6 nm	110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	165 Watt	18 Watt

RX 7600 has a 39009.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1733.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 285, on the other hand, has 816.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 285 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 7600 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 285 is a workstation one.

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