ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs GeForce GTX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480 and Radeon X1600 PRO, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 480 outperforms ATI X1600 PRO by a whopping 4132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 435 | 1367 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.65 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.95 | 0.43 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | RV530 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 480 and ATI X1600 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 480 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 157 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 42.06 | 2.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.345 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 60 | 4 |
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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 1536 MB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) | 390 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 12.48 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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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 Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 60−65
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+4900%
|
3−4
−4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 60−65
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+4600%
|
2−3
−4600%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60−65
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+5450%
|
2−3
−5450%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.58 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 1 October 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 41 Watt |
GTX 480 has a 4132% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
ATI X1600 PRO, on the other hand, has 509.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
