Quadro FX 1600M vs HD Graphics 5600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 5600 with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 5600 outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 711% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 685 | 1254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 22.66 | 0.84 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Broadwell GT2 | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 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.
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 cores | 192 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,300 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4032 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | Ring Bus | 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
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 | 12
+1100%
| 1−2
−1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 149.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+255%
|
10−12
−255%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+255%
|
10−12
−255%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| God of War | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how HD Graphics 5600 and FX 1600M compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 5600 is 1100% 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 HD Graphics 5600 is 1650% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 1600M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 5600 is ahead in 30 tests (94%)
- FX 1600M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.46 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 5 September 2014 | 1 June 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD Graphics 5600 has a 710.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 5600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 5600 is a notebook graphics 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.
