ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs Quadro 410
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 410 with Radeon X1600 PRO, including specs and performance data.
410 outperforms X1600 PRO by a whopping 336% 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 | 1144 | 1426 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.05 | 0.43 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | RV530 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 August 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 October 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro 410 and ATI X1600 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 157 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.30 | 2.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2711 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 176 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 891 MHz | 390 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.26 GB/s | 12.48 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.96 | 0.22 |
| Recency | 7 August 2012 | 1 October 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 38 Watt | 41 Watt |
Quadro 410 has a 336.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 7.9% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 410 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 410 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon X1600 PRO is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
