CPU
GPU
T600
Popular choices:
Quadro P3000
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 P3000 is on rank 135, 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 P3000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The T600 uses modern memory architecture. The T600 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro P3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The T600 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro P3000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P3000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $80 versus $180 for the T600, it costs 56% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 123.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+123.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($180) | ✅More affordable ($80) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of T600 and Quadro P3000
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 P3000
The Quadro P3000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 1 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1506 MHz to 1645 MHz. It has 3840 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,384 points. Launch price was $5,999.
Graphics Performance
The T600 scores 6,425 and the Quadro P3000 reaches 6,384 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The T600 is built on Turing while the Quadro P3000 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 640 (T600) vs 3,840 (Quadro P3000). Raw compute: 1.709 TFLOPS (T600) vs 12.63 TFLOPS (Quadro P3000). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1645 MHz.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,425 | 6,384 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 3840+500% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.709 TFLOPS | 12.63 TFLOPS+639% |
| Boost Clock | 1335 MHz | 1645 MHz+23% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 40 | 240+500% |
| L1 Cache | 0.63 MB | 1.4 MB+122% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P3000 has 6 GB. The Quadro P3000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (T600) vs 3 MB (Quadro P3000) — the Quadro P3000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB+200% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (T600) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro P3000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) (Quadro P3000). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs 3rd Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (T600) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P3000).
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC (Turing) | 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | 3rd Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The T600 draws 40W versus the Quadro P3000's 250W — a 144.8% difference. The T600 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (T600) vs 350W (Quadro P3000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 40W-84% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 156mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-19% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 160.6+530% | 25.5 |
Value Analysis
The T600 launched at $200 MSRP and currently averages $180, while the Quadro P3000 launched at $600 and now averages $80. The Quadro P3000 costs 55.6% less ($100 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 35.7 (T600) vs 79.8 (Quadro P3000) — the Quadro P3000 offers 123.5% better value. The T600 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2016).
| Feature | T600 | Quadro P3000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $200-67% | $600 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $180 | $80-56% |
| Performance per Dollar | 35.7 | 79.8+124% |
| Codename | TU117 | GP102 |
| Release | May 6 2021 | October 1 2016 |
| Ranking | #378 | #141 |
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 P3000
