#Nvidia quadro k600 benchmark drivers

it's pricey (at $400+), and only gives you about the same performance level you'd have with a $100 GTX 650. However, if you want a card with better performance for GPU accelerated features, I'd look at the K2000 at a minimum.

Even on a really tight budget, you'll want the newer Quadro K600 instead (which is available at virtually the same price, but with more CUDA cores and better performance).

#Nvidia quadro k600 benchmark drivers

That's just the way Nvidia prices their Quadro Series cards if you want drivers supporting features like 10 bit per channel color (you're going to pay a lot more for that feature).Īnyway, whether or not you think 10 bit per channel color output to a display is worth it or not is up to you.īut, if you do want that feature, I'd definitely avoid the older Quadro 600. So, you're spending about 4 times as much for the K2000 versus something like the GTX 650 with equivalent performance (and you could buy a GeForce GTX 660 Card that's dramatically faster than the K2000 for half the cost, including Displayports). Of course, the K2000 also gives you Displayports (needed for 10 bit per channel color), but it's *VERY* expensive (and you can get Displayports on GeForce cards costing just a tiny bit more than a GTX 650, at a huge savings over a K2000, but their drivers won't support 10 bits per channel).įor example a card like a GTX 660 is *dramatically* faster than the K2000, at around half the cost (but, the GeForce drivers don't allow 10 bit per channel color, even though the hardware is perfectly capable of supporting that feature)

The Quadro K2000 gives you roughly the same performance you'd get with a $100 Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 on most benchmarks (which is about the minimum card needed for maximum performance with the current GPU Accelerated features with apps like Photoshop). So, if you're concerned about a bit of 'future proofing' with better performance with GPU Accelerated features in apps like Photoshop, I'd look at the newer Quadro K2000 at a minimum. IOW, you're going to spend around 3 times as much for the same performance you'd get with a GeForce card model, just to get the drivers that allow features like 10 bits per channel (since only the Quadro Cards in the Nvida Lineup have drivers that support that feature) Just keep in mind that it's a very slow card compared to the GeForce lineup. So, if you want to go with an entry level card, a Quadro K600 would be one to look at. That card has been replaced by the newer Quadro K600 (note the K prefix on it) which has 192 CUDA Cores versus the 96 CUDA cores you have on the older Quadro 600, and performs better on most benchmarks (at a virtually identical price point). If you want 10 bit per channel color output to a display with a 10 bit per channel panel using Photoshop (and most other apps are going to be limited to 8 bits per channel) then a Quadro card is a good idea.īut, the Quadro 600 is a discontinued card model now (although you'll still find it in stock at many vendors). 1) Would it be recommended to get a 10 bit capable graphics card as well? (I'd probably go for the NVidia Quadra 600).