RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Quadro NVS 160M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

NVS 160M
2008
256 MB GDDR3, 12 Watt
0.35

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 13157% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking128973
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data83.51
Power efficiency2.0045.48
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameG98AD107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date15 August 2008 (16 years ago)12 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores82816
Core clock speed580 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2130 MHz
Number of transistors210 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate4.640187.4
Floating-point processing power0.0232 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs888
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Coresno data22

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).

InterfaceMXM-IPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.2 GB/s256.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.18.9

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.

NVS 160M 0.35
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 46.40
+13157%

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.

NVS 160M 135
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 17876
+13141%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−11567%
350−400
+11567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%
Hitman 3 4−5
−12400%
500−550
+12400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−13025%
1050−1100
+13025%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−12400%
500−550
+12400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−13114%
3700−3750
+13114%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−11567%
350−400
+11567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%
Hitman 3 4−5
−12400%
500−550
+12400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−13025%
1050−1100
+13025%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−12400%
500−550
+12400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−12678%
1150−1200
+12678%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−13114%
3700−3750
+13114%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−11567%
350−400
+11567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%
Hitman 3 4−5
−12400%
500−550
+12400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−13025%
1050−1100
+13025%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−12400%
500−550
+12400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−12678%
1150−1200
+12678%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−13114%
3700−3750
+13114%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
−12400%
750−800
+12400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−12900%
130−140
+12900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−12900%
260−270
+12900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.35 46.40
Recency 15 August 2008 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 70 Watt

NVS 160M has 483.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 13157.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.


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

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 NVS 160M
Quadro NVS 160M
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
RTX 2000 Ada Generation

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3 23 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 27 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.