NVIDIA Quadro 600 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro 600 and NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 600
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- 2.3x more texture fill rate: 10.24 GTexel / s vs 4.4 billion / sec
- 6x more pipelines: 96 vs 16
- 8.4x better floating-point performance: 245.76 gflops vs 29.376 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 80 nm
- Around 25% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 50 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 512 MB
- 4x more memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 400 MHz
- 3.3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 531 vs 162
- 5.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 232 vs 39
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2037 vs 1016
- 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2037 vs 1016
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 December 2010 vs 1 August 2008 |
Texture fill rate | 10.24 GTexel / s vs 4.4 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 96 vs 16 |
Floating-point performance | 245.76 gflops vs 29.376 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 80 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt vs 50 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 400 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 531 vs 162 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 232 vs 39 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2037 vs 1016 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2037 vs 1016 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
- 2.2x more core clock speed: 1400 MHz vs 640 MHz
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1796 vs 1255
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1796 vs 1255
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1400 MHz vs 640 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1796 vs 1255 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1796 vs 1255 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 600
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro 600 | NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 531 | 162 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 232 | 39 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2117 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.617 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 185.752 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.526 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.023 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.137 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 899 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1255 | 1796 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2037 | 1016 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 899 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1255 | 1796 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2037 | 1016 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro 600 | NVIDIA GeForce 9400 GT | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
Code name | GF108 | G86 |
Launch date | 13 December 2010 | 1 August 2008 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | $79.99 |
Place in performance rating | 1466 | 1468 |
Price now | $299 | $79.99 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 2.80 | 3.05 |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 1400 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 245.76 gflops | 29.376 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
Pipelines | 96 | 16 |
Texture fill rate | 10.24 GTexel / s | 4.4 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | 50 Watt |
Transistor count | 585 million | 210 million |
CUDA cores | 16 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video, Dual Link DVI |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 168 mm | 6.6" (16.8 cm) |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB / s | 12.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz | 400 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | DDR2 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
SLI |