Quadro FX 1600M vs GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile

Place in the ranking	147	1293
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	21.03	0.47
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	TU106B	G84
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	29 January 2019 (5 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.

no data

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	2304	32
Core clock speed	1305 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1485 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	10,800 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	213.8	10.00
Floating-point processing power	6.843 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	144	16
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	36	no data

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

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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	448.0 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
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	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	119 +11800%	1−2 −11800%
1440p	73	0−1
4K	45	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

149.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55
+2600%

2−3

−2600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	100 +3233%	3−4 −3233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	81	0−1
Battlefield 5	142 +14100%	1−2 −14100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	106 +5200%	2−3 −5200%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Far Cry 5	125 +12400%	1−2 −12400%
Far Cry New Dawn	127 +12600%	1−2 −12600%
Forza Horizon 4	382 +12633%	3−4 −12633%
Hitman 3	100 +2400%	4−5 −2400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	234 +2825%	8−9 −2825%
Metro Exodus	143 +14200%	1−2 −14200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	106 +10500%	1−2 −10500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	186 +4550%	4−5 −4550%
Watch Dogs: Legion	223 +696%	27−30 −696%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	112 +3633%	3−4 −3633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	69	0−1
Battlefield 5	127 +12600%	1−2 −12600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	94 +4600%	2−3 −4600%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Far Cry 5	97	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	93	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	287 +14250%	2−3 −14250%
Hitman 3	96 +2300%	4−5 −2300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	230 +2775%	8−9 −2775%
Metro Exodus	130 +12900%	1−2 −12900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	86	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	149 +3625%	4−5 −3625%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	200 +2122%	9−10 −2122%
Watch Dogs: Legion	211 +654%	27−30 −654%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	58 +1833%	3−4 −1833%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	59	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	69 +3350%	2−3 −3350%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Far Cry 5	73	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	94	0−1
Hitman 3	80 +1900%	4−5 −1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	114 +1325%	8−9 −1325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	125 +3025%	4−5 −3025%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 +722%	9−10 −722%
Watch Dogs: Legion	56 +100%	27−30 −100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	78	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	64	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	48	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24	0−1
Far Cry 5	52	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	277 +13750%	2−3 −13750%
Hitman 3	56 +833%	6−7 −833%
Horizon Zero Dawn	87 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Metro Exodus	74	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	206 +10200%	2−3 −10200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

73
+3550%

2−3

−3550%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	39	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	36	0−1
Hitman 3	36	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	101	0−1
Metro Exodus	45	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	31 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	28	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	29	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10	0−1
Far Cry 5	26	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	40−45	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	23	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

37
+1750%

2−3

−1750%

This is how RTX 2070 Mobile and FX 1600M compete in popular games:

RTX 2070 Mobile is 11800% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2070 Mobile is 5200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RTX 2070 Mobile surpassed FX 1600M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	34.69	0.34
Recency	29 January 2019	1 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	50 Watt

RTX 2070 Mobile has a 10102.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 130% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.