Radeon 780M vs Quadro FX 1600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.
780M outperforms 1600M by a whopping 3472% 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 | 1310 | 362 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 46 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.71 | 84.34 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | G84 | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2007 (18 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 2 MB |
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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
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 | 0−1 | 35 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 21 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 13 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3000%
|
31
+3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−389%
|
130−140
+389%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1238%
|
210−220
+1238%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24
+2300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−818%
|
100−110
+818%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 29 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−820%
|
46
+820%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−389%
|
130−140
+389%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−818%
|
100−110
+818%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1625%
|
65−70
+1625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−480%
|
29
+480%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−389%
|
130−140
+389%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−800%
|
27
+800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−6050%
|
120−130
+6050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 35−40 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−50%
|
21
+50%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 6050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 780M performs better in 27 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 31 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.46 | 16.43 |
| Recency | 1 June 2007 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 3471.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1900% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 780M 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 Radeon 780M 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.
