GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA Quadro P600 are both entry-level professional GPUs from the same Pascal generation, but the benchmark data shows they serve different masters. The P1000 wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, establishing itself as the clear compute and DirectX leader, while the P600 scores a decisive victory in Vulkan performance. This split is not trivial: it means the choice between them hinges entirely on the workload, with the P1000 dominating legacy API and OpenCL tasks and the P600 offering a specific advantage in Vulkan-based applications.

Where Each One Wins

The P1000 is the overall performance champion, holding a 21.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (13584 vs 11181) and a 36% lead in Passmark G3D (4512 vs 3317). Its wins span every DirectX generation tested: DirectX 9 (79 vs 56, a 41.1% lead), DirectX 10 (21 vs 14, a 50% lead), DirectX 11 (31 vs 24, a 29.2% lead), and DirectX 12 (19 vs 14, a 35.7% lead). The P1000 also wins in compute workloads, besting the P600 by 33.6% in Passmark GPU Compute (1891 vs 1415), and in 2D tasks with an 11.3% advantage in Passmark G2D (589 vs 529).

The P600 wins only one test, but it wins it decisively: Geekbench Vulkan scores 9755 versus the P1000’s 7739, a 20.7% advantage. This is the single largest margin in either direction in the entire head-to-head set. For any application that leverages the Vulkan API, the P600 is the faster card, and that advantage is large enough to make it the preferred choice for Vulkan-specific rendering pipelines. Outside of that one workload, the P1000 is the consistent winner across every other metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The P1000 has an average benchmark score of 3163, while the P600 scores 2923. The P1000 also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs at 20, versus 19 for the P600.

Q: How much faster is the P1000 in DirectX 12?

A: The P1000 scores 19 in Passmark DirectX 12, while the P600 scores 14. This represents a 35.7% advantage for the P1000.

Q: Is the P600 better in any benchmark?

A: Yes. The P600 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 9755, which is 20.7% higher than the P1000’s 7739. This is the only test the P600 wins.

Q: What is the memory size difference between the two cards?

A: The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the P600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: Do both cards have the same power connector requirements?

A: Yes, both the P1000 and P600 have no power connectors and both have a suggested PSU of 200 W. They also share the same single-slot design and identical dimensions.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The P600 has a higher boost clock at 1557 MHz, compared to the P1000’s 1480 MHz. The P600 also has a higher base clock at 1329 MHz versus 1266 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the P1000 comes in Passmark DirectX 10, where it scores 21 against the P600’s 14, a 50% lead. This is followed closely by a 41.1% lead in DirectX 9 (79 vs 56) and a 36% lead in Passmark G3D (4512 vs 3317). The P1000’s dominance in compute is equally stark: the 1891 score in Passmark GPU Compute is 33.6% higher than the P600’s 1415. Even in the more modern DirectX 12 test, the P1000 maintains a substantial 35.7% edge (19 vs 14). The 2D performance gap is smaller but still clear, with the P1000 leading 589 to 529 in Passmark G2D.

The P600’s single victory is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 9755. This is not a narrow margin; it is a 20.7% improvement over the P1000’s 7739. Interestingly, the P1000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by a comparable margin of 21.5% (13584 vs 11181), meaning the two cards split the Geekbench API tests almost symmetrically but in opposite directions. Across the nine benchmarks, the P1000’s average lead in its eight wins is substantial, with several tests showing leads of over 30%. The data is unambiguous: for the vast majority of workloads, the P1000 is the faster card, but the P600 holds a specific, significant niche in Vulkan performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same GP107 chip, 14 nm process node, Samsung foundry, 3,300 million transistors, and 132 mm² die size. They also have identical PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces, display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), and API support (DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4). The fundamental differences lie in the execution resources and memory configuration.

The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the P600 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the P1000 has 66.7% more shading units, 66.7% more TMUs, and twice the ROP count. The P1000 also has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, though both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The memory bandwidth reflects this: the P1000 delivers 80.19 GB/s compared to the P600’s 64.13 GB/s, a 25% advantage. The P1000’s memory is also clocked higher at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds are the one area where the P600 leads. The P600 has a base clock of 1329 MHz and a boost clock of 1557 MHz, both higher than the P1000’s 1266 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost. However, this clock advantage does not overcome the P1000’s superior core configuration. The resulting rates show the P1000’s dominance: it achieves 47.36 GPixel/s pixel rate and 59.20 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 24.91 GPixel/s and 37.37 GTexel/s for the P600. The FP32 throughput is 1.894 TFLOPS for the P1000 versus 1,195.8 GFLOPS for the P600. The P1000 also draws slightly more power at 47 W versus 40 W, though both suggest a 200 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same Pascal architecture and the same GP107 chip, so there are no fundamental architectural differences in terms of node, foundry, or feature set. They share the same transistor count and die size, and both lack dedicated RT cores and tensor cores. The FP16 performance ratio is also identical at 1:64, with the P1000 achieving 29.60 GFLOPS and the P600 achieving 18.68 GFLOPS, directly proportional to their shading unit counts.

The differences are purely in the scale of the implementation. The P1000 is a fuller configuration of the GP107 chip with 640 shading units, while the P600 is a cut-down version with 384 shading units. This is the primary architectural difference: the P1000 has 66.7% more shading units and TMUs, and 100% more ROPs than the P600. The memory subsystem is also configured differently, with the P1000 using a higher memory clock and double the capacity. The higher clock speeds of the P600 are a minor compensating factor, but they do not change the fundamental fact that the P1000 is the more fully featured implementation of the same silicon. Both cards are end-of-life, released on the same date, and share the same Quadro Pascal generation designation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the superior card for nearly every task. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with leads ranging from 11.3% in 2D performance to 50% in DirectX 10. Its 4 GB memory capacity, higher bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, and 66.7% more shading units make it the obvious choice for general professional workloads, compute tasks, and DirectX-based applications. The 36% lead in Passmark G3D and 33.6% lead in GPU compute are particularly telling for any 3D rendering or general-purpose GPU work.

The Quadro P600 is not without merit. Its 20.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is substantial and cannot be dismissed. For any workflow that is specifically built on the Vulkan API, the P600 will deliver higher performance. It also has slightly higher clock speeds and a lower TDP of 40 W, which could be a minor consideration in thermally constrained environments. However, these advantages are narrow. The P600’s 2 GB memory capacity and 64.13 GB/s bandwidth are severe limitations for modern workloads, and its 19th percentile ranking among all GPUs is only marginally lower than the P1000’s 20th percentile.

Choose the P1000 if you need broad performance across OpenCL, DirectX, compute, and 2D tasks, or if you require double the memory capacity. Choose the P600 only if your primary applications are Vulkan-based and you can accept its limited memory and lower performance in every other category. For the vast majority of users, the data points decisively to the P1000.