Quadro FX 1600M vs GeForce GTX 460 768MB

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 460 768MB with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 460 768MB
3.98
+624%

GTX 460 768MB outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 624% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7211254
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiencyno data0.84
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameno dataG84
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release dateno data1 June 2007 (18 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.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores33632
Core clock speed675 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistorsno data289 million
Manufacturing process technologyno data80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data10.00
Floating-point processing powerno data0.08 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 sizeno datalarge
Interfaceno dataMXM-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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
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 HD47
+683%
6−7
−683%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data24.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
God of War 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Fortnite 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
God of War 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Valorant 50−55
+100%
27−30
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+300%
18−20
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Dota 2 35−40
+227%
10−12
−227%
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Fortnite 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
God of War 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+650%
2−3
−650%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Valorant 50−55
+100%
27−30
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Dota 2 35−40
+227%
10−12
−227%
Far Cry 5 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
God of War 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Valorant 50−55
+100%
27−30
−100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Valorant 40−45
+760%
5−6
−760%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
God of War 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

4K
High Preset

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 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6 0−1
God of War 3−4 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 32 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.98 0.55

GTX 460 768MB has a 623.6% 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 graphics card while Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 768MB
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M
Quadro FX 1600M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 106 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 460 768MB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 460 768MB or Quadro FX 1600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.