Quadro FX 1600M vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 460 768MB outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 620% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 684 | 1214 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.83 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | no data | G84 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | no data | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-HE |
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 | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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 | 47
+683%
| 6−7
−683%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 24.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+300%
|
18−20
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GTX 460 768MB and FX 1600M compete in popular games:
- GTX 460 768MB is 683% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 460 768MB is 1450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 460 768MB surpassed FX 1600M in all 35 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.25 | 0.59 |
GTX 460 768MB has a 620.3% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 460 768MB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 768MB is a desktop 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.
