Radeon RX 7800 XT vs Quadro FX 1600M

Place in the ranking	1212	33
Place by popularity	not in top-100	65
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	67.94
Power efficiency	0.83	16.45
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	G84	Navi 32
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2007 (17 years ago)	25 August 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149.90	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

RX 7800 XT has 226367% better value for money than FX 1600M.

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	3840
Core clock speed	625 MHz	1295 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2430 MHz
Number of transistors	289 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	80 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	263 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	583.2
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	37.32 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	96
TMUs	16	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	60

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 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 8-pin

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	16 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	2438 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	624.1 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	1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI	-	+

API and SDK compatibility

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	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 1600M 0.58

RX 7800 XT 60.41
+10316%

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.

FX 1600M 231

RX 7800 XT 24211
+10381%

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	2−3 −10650%	215 +10650%
1440p	1−2 −12100%	122 +12100%
4K	0−1	72

Cost per frame, $

1080p	74.95 −3129%	2.32 +3129%
1440p	149.90 −3565%	4.09 +3565%
4K	no data	6.93

RX 7800 XT has 3129% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 7800 XT has 3565% lower cost per frame in 1440p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −2578%	241 +2578%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −8500%	258 +8500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −2122%	200 +2122%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3100%	96 +3100%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −8033%	488 +8033%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −2200%	110−120 +2200%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1711%	163 +1711%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2567%	80 +2567%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −1313%	113 +1313%
Fortnite	1−2 −24500%	240−250 +24500%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −6533%	398 +6533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −2289%	210−220 +2289%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −2200%	110−120 +2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −3380%	170−180 +3380%
World of Tanks	16−18 −1541%	270−280 +1541%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1556%	149 +1556%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2367%	74 +2367%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −1438%	120−130 +1438%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −5567%	340 +5567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −2289%	210−220 +2289%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −5733%	170−180 +5733%
World of Tanks	2−3 −21150%	400−450 +21150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1500%	48 +1500%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −3900%	160−170 +3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −3575%	147 +3575%
Valorant	5−6 −5000%	250−260 +5000%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −913%	152 +913%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −913%	152 +913%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −20800%	200−210 +20800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −913%	152 +913%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	80−85
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1000%	22 +1000%
Dota 2	14−16 −10233%	1550−1600 +10233%
Valorant	1−2 −14400%	140−150 +14400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Metro Exodus	171 +0%	171 +0%
Valorant	290−300 +0%	290−300 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Dota 2	178 +0%	178 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	178 +0%	178 +0%
Metro Exodus	147 +0%	147 +0%
Valorant	290−300 +0%	290−300 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Valorant	290−300 +0%	290−300 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	140 +0%	140 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	140 +0%	140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	243 +0%	243 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	148 +0%	148 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	63 +0%	63 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21 +0%	21 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	130 +0%	130 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

This is how FX 1600M and RX 7800 XT compete in popular games:

RX 7800 XT is 10650% faster in 1080p
RX 7800 XT is 12100% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7800 XT is 24500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 7800 XT is ahead in 32 tests (53%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.58	60.41
Recency	1 June 2007	25 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	16 GB
Chip lithography	80 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	263 Watt

FX 1600M has 426% lower power consumption.

RX 7800 XT, on the other hand, has a 10315.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1500% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7800 XT 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 Radeon RX 7800 XT is a desktop one.

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