Radeon RX Vega 3 vs Quadro FX 1600M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with Radeon RX Vega 3, including specs and performance data.

FX 1600M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 50 Watt
0.52

RX Vega 3 outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 394% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1217792
Place by popularitynot in top-10089
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiency0.8213.53
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameG84Picasso
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2007 (17 years ago)6 January 2019 (6 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.

no data

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 cores32192
Core clock speed625 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1001 MHz
Number of transistors289 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate10.0012.01
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS0.3844 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs1612

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.1-

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.

FX 1600M 0.52
RX Vega 3 2.57
+394%

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 Vega 3 1149
+397%

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 HD2−3
−500%
12
+500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p74.95no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Valorant 27−30
−60.7%
45−50
+60.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−35.3%
23
+35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Dota 2 12−14
−75%
21
+75%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
Metro Exodus 0−1 2
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−50%
6
+50%
Valorant 27−30
−60.7%
45−50
+60.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Dota 2 12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−250%
14−16
+250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−60.7%
45−50
+60.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−900%
20−22
+900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 2−3
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Valorant 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 29
+0%
29
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 7
+0%
7
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 5
+0%
5
+0%
Fortnite 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9
+0%
9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5
+0%
5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 1600M and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 3 is 500% 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 RX Vega 3 is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega 3 is ahead in 29 tests (53%)
  • there's a draw in 26 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.52 2.57
Recency 1 June 2007 6 January 2019
Chip lithography 80 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 15 Watt

RX Vega 3 has a 394.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 3 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 Vega 3 is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M
Quadro FX 1600M
AMD Radeon RX Vega 3
Radeon RX Vega 3

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2056 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 1600M or Radeon RX Vega 3, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.