ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs Quadro 3000M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking814not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Power efficiency2.38no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameGF104RV530
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)1 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$398.96 $199

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 cores240no data
Core clock speed450 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million157 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate18.002.000
Floating-point processing power0.432 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs404

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed625 MHz390 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s12.48 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

Quadro 3000M 995
+915%
ATI X1600 PRO 98

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 February 2011 1 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 41 Watt

Quadro 3000M has an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1600 PRO, on the other hand, has 82.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro 3000M and Radeon X1600 PRO. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon X1600 PRO is a desktop one.


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

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 Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M
ATI Radeon X1600 PRO
Radeon X1600 PRO

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 44 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 121 vote

Rate Radeon X1600 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.