CPU
GPU
T600
Popular choices:
Quadro M4000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The T600 is positioned at rank 36 and the Quadro M4000 is on rank 159, so the T600 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar T600
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M4000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The T600 is significantly newer (2021 vs 2015). The T600 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M4000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the T600.
| Insight | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The T600 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $180 versus $350 for the Quadro M4000, it costs 49% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 87% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+87%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($180) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($350) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of T600 and Quadro M4000
T600
The T600 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 735 MHz to 1335 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,425 points.
Quadro M4000
The Quadro M4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,679 points.
Graphics Performance
The T600 scores 6,425 and the Quadro M4000 reaches 6,679 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The T600 is built on Turing while the Quadro M4000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 640 (T600) vs 1 (Quadro M4000). Raw compute: 1.709 TFLOPS (T600) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1013 MHz.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,425 | 6,679+4% |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 1,280+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.709 TFLOPS | 2.496 TFLOPS+46% |
| Boost Clock | 1335 MHz+32% | 1013 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 40 | 80+100% |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB+33% | 480 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The T600 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M4000 has 8 GB. The Quadro M4000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (T600) vs 2 MB (Quadro M4000) — the Quadro M4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (T600) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (Turing) (T600) vs 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M4000). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs 1st Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (T600) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Quadro M4000).
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC (Turing) | 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | 1st Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 |
Power & Dimensions
The T600 draws 40W versus the Quadro M4000's 100W — a 85.7% difference. The T600 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (T600) vs 350W (Quadro M4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 156mm vs 241mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 82°C.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 40W-60% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 156mm | 241mm |
| Height | 69mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-21% | 82°C |
| Perf/Watt | 160.6+140% | 66.8 |
Value Analysis
The T600 launched at $200 MSRP and currently averages $180, while the Quadro M4000 launched at $791 and now averages $350. The T600 costs 48.6% less ($170 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 35.7 (T600) vs 19.1 (Quadro M4000) — the T600 offers 86.9% better value. The T600 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2015).
| Feature | T600 | Quadro M4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $200-75% | $791 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $180-49% | $350 |
| Performance per Dollar | 35.7+87% | 19.1 |
| Codename | TU117 | GM204 |
| Release | May 6 2021 | August 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #378 | #392 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on T600 and Quadro M4000
