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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 590

2011

Why buy it

✅70.6% more average FPS across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 4.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($699 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (3 GB vs 2 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 3 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌812.5% higher power demand at 365W vs 40W.

Quadro P600

2017

Why buy it

✅Draws 40W instead of 365W, a 325W reduction.
✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 590 across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 3 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 4.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $699 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 590

2011

Quadro P600

2017

Why buy it

✅70.6% more average FPS across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 4.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($699 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (3 GB vs 2 GB).

Why buy it

✅Draws 40W instead of 365W, a 325W reduction.
✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Very weak future-proofing: 2011-era hardware with 3 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌812.5% higher power demand at 365W vs 40W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 590 across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 3 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 4.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $699 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 590 better than Quadro P600?

Yes. GeForce GTX 590 is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 70.6% more average FPS across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data, 0.7% higher PassMark G3D performance, and 3 GB vs 2 GB of VRAM. It also comes from 2011 instead of 2017, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 590 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more VRAM at 3 GB instead of 2 GB. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 590 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 590 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $699 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 70.6% more estimated average FPS across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data and 0.7% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. Quadro P600 is the newer 2017 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture and lower power draw (40W vs 365W) than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does Quadro P600 make more sense than GeForce GTX 590?

Yes. Quadro P600 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (40W vs 365W), and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 590. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 590 currently gives you 0.7% higher G3D Mark and 70.6% more estimated average FPS across 46 tracked games in our benchmark data. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

Games Benchmarks

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 9800X3D 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.

GeForce GTX 590 Benchmark Check

Quadro P600 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
1080p
low	80 FPS	32 FPS
medium	65 FPS	22 FPS
high	52 FPS	14 FPS
ultra	34 FPS	11 FPS
1440p
low	67 FPS	21 FPS
medium	55 FPS	14 FPS
high	40 FPS	7 FPS
ultra	25 FPS	6 FPS
4K
low	25 FPS	12 FPS
medium	23 FPS	8 FPS
high	15 FPS	5 FPS
ultra	13 FPS	4 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 590 Open Quadro P600

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
1080p
low	137 FPS	79 FPS
medium	107 FPS	50 FPS
high	86 FPS	37 FPS
ultra	63 FPS	23 FPS
1440p
low	97 FPS	22 FPS
medium	70 FPS	16 FPS
high	57 FPS	11 FPS
ultra	42 FPS	8 FPS
4K
low	44 FPS	7 FPS
medium	34 FPS	4 FPS
high	31 FPS	4 FPS
ultra	25 FPS	3 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 590 Open Quadro P600

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
1080p
low	150 FPS	149 FPS
medium	120 FPS	119 FPS
high	100 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	75 FPS
1440p
low	113 FPS	112 FPS
medium	90 FPS	90 FPS
high	75 FPS	75 FPS
ultra	56 FPS	56 FPS
4K
low	75 FPS	75 FPS
medium	60 FPS	60 FPS
high	50 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	38 FPS	37 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 590 Open Quadro P600

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
1080p
low	150 FPS	149 FPS
medium	120 FPS	119 FPS
high	100 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	75 FPS	75 FPS
1440p
low	113 FPS	112 FPS
medium	90 FPS	90 FPS
high	75 FPS	75 FPS
ultra	56 FPS	56 FPS
4K
low	75 FPS	75 FPS
medium	52 FPS	60 FPS
high	41 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	29 FPS	37 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 590 Open Quadro P600

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 590 and Quadro P600

GeForce GTX 590

The GeForce GTX 590 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 24 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 607 MHz. It has 1024 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 365W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,341 points. Launch price was $699.

Quadro P600

The Quadro P600 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 7 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1430 MHz to 1620 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,318 points. Launch price was $178.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 590 scores 3,341 and the Quadro P600 reaches 3,318 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 590 is built on Fermi 2.0 while the Quadro P600 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 590) vs 384 (Quadro P600). Raw compute: 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 590) vs 1.244 TFLOPS (Quadro P600).

Feature	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
G3D Mark Score	3,341	3,318
Architecture	Fermi 2.0	Pascal
Process Node	40 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	1024 ×2+167%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.244 TFLOPS ×2	1.244 TFLOPS
ROPs	48 ×2+200%	16
TMUs	64 ×2+167%	24
L1 Cache	1 MB+614%	0.14 MB
L2 Cache	0.75 MB	1 MB+33%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 590 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro P600 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 590 comes with 3 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P600 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 590 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (GeForce GTX 590) vs 1 MB (Quadro P600) — the Quadro P600 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
VRAM Capacity	3 GB+50%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit+300%	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.75 MB	1 MB+33%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GTX 590) vs 12_1 (Quadro P600). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12_1
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP5) vs NVDEC 4th Gen.

Feature	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
Encoder	—	NVENC 6th Gen
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP5)	NVDEC 4th Gen
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 590 draws 365W versus the Quadro P600's 40W — a 160.5% difference. The Quadro P600 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 700W (GeForce GTX 590) vs 350W (Quadro P600). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce GTX 590	Quadro P600
TDP	365W	40W-89%
Recommended PSU	700W	350W-50%
Power Connector	2x 8-pin	PCIe-powered
Length	—	145mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	90°C	—
Perf/Watt	9.2	83.0+802%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 590 launched at $699 MSRP, while the Quadro P600 launched at $0. The Quadro P600 costs 100+% less ($699 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 4.8 (GeForce GTX 590) vs Infinity (Quadro P600) — the Quadro P600 offers Infinity% better value. The Quadro P600 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2011).