GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro FX 1600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms 1600M by a whopping 4885% 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 | 1298 | 270 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 66 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.71 | 29.34 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G84 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2007 (18 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149.90 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 32 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no data |
| L2 Cache | 32 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).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-HE | no data |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 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 | 1−2
−6900%
| 70
+6900%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 34 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 149.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8000%
|
81
+8000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6300%
|
64
+6300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2225%
|
90−95
+2225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1038%
|
90−95
+1038%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−504%
|
160−170
+504%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1488%
|
250−260
+1488%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1000%
|
120−130
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2225%
|
90−95
+2225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1038%
|
90−95
+1038%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1720%
|
91
+1720%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−504%
|
160−170
+504%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1000%
|
120−130
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2225%
|
90−95
+2225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1038%
|
90−95
+1038%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−900%
|
50
+900%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−504%
|
160−170
+504%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−16500%
|
160−170
+16500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3400%
|
170−180
+3400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−5900%
|
60−65
+5900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1750%
|
37
+1750%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 55−60 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−214%
|
40−45
+214%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−4467%
|
130−140
+4467%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how FX 1600M and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 6900% 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 RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 16500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile performs better in 28 tests (45%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (55%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.46 | 22.93 |
| Recency | 1 June 2007 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt |
FX 1600M has 20% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4884.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile 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.
