GeForce Go 7950 GTX vs Quadro FX 1600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with GeForce Go 7950 GTX, including specs and performance data.
Go 7950 GTX outperforms FX 1600M by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1213 | 1188 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.82 | 1.05 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | G84 | G71 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) | 12 October 2006 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149.90 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 32 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 13.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 |
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 | MXM-HE | MXM-III |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 44.8 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Go 7950 GTX is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Go 7950 GTX is ahead in 12 tests (34%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (66%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 1 June 2007 | 12 October 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
FX 1600M has an age advantage of 7 months, and a 12.5% more advanced lithography process.
Go 7950 GTX, on the other hand, has a 15.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 11.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce Go 7950 GTX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce Go 7950 GTX 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.
