Quadro FX 1600M vs FirePro W7170M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W7170M and Quadro FX 1600M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
W7170M outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 2312% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 511 | 1295 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 5.62 | 0.47 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | G84 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 92.54 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.961 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
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 | large | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-HE |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 55
+2650%
| 2−3
−2650%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 74.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+889%
|
9−10
−889%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2600%
|
2−3
−2600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how W7170M and FX 1600M compete in popular games:
- W7170M is 2650% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the W7170M is 889% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, W7170M surpassed FX 1600M in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.20 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 1 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
W7170M has a 2311.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W7170M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
