T1000 vs Quadro FX 1600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 3183% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1212 | 288 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.83 | 27.28 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G84 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (3 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 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1395 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 78.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 2.5 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 56 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 160.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
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.
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 | 1−2
−5700%
| 58
+5700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 149.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−400%
|
45
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
34
+278%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1350%
|
87
+1350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−211%
|
28
+211%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130
+1525%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−10400%
|
100−110
+10400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1050%
|
69
+1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1389%
|
130−140
+1389%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−820%
|
45−50
+820%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1140%
|
60−65
+1140%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
−1253%
|
230−240
+1253%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−167%
|
24
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−725%
|
65−70
+725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−900%
|
60
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1389%
|
130−140
+1389%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−6650%
|
130−140
+6650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1225%
|
50−55
+1225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−127%
|
30−35
+127%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−127%
|
30−35
+127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−5900%
|
60−65
+5900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−127%
|
30−35
+127%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 20−22 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−2900%
|
450−500
+2900%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how FX 1600M and T1000 compete in popular games:
- T1000 is 5700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 is 10400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1000 is ahead in 25 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 19.04 |
| Recency | 1 June 2007 | 6 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 12 nm |
T1000 has a 3182.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The T1000 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 T1000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
