Quadro FX 1600M vs FirePro S10000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro S10000 with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.
S10000 outperforms 1600M by a whopping 2217% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 477 | 1323 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 2.25 | 0.73 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | G84 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 June 2007 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,599 | $149.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
S10000 has 2400% better value for money than FX 1600M.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 ×2 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 750 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 106.4 ×2 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.405 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 8 |
| TMUs | 112 ×2 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 32 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-HE |
| Length | 305 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB ×2 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480 GB/s ×2 | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.89 | 0.47 |
| Recency | 12 November 2012 | 1 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 750 Watt | 50 Watt |
S10000 has a 2217% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 1400% lower power consumption.
The FirePro S10000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro S10000 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
