Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Quadro NVS 160M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 160M
2008
256 MB GDDR3, 12 Watt
0.35

RX 6500 XT outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 6986% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1287218
Place by popularitynot in top-10085
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data58.56
Power efficiency2.0316.17
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG98Navi 24
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date15 August 2008 (16 years ago)19 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

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 cores81024
Core clock speed580 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2815 MHz
Number of transistors210 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate4.640180.2
Floating-point processing power0.0232 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs864
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 x4
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth11.2 GB/s143.9 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 outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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. 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
RX 6500 XT 24.80
+6986%

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
RX 6500 XT 9569
+6988%

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 HD0−163
1440p-0−130
4K-0−117

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.16
1440pno data6.63
4Kno data11.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3500%
72
+3500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2600%
54
+2600%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1325%
110−120
+1325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2000%
80−85
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−268%
100−110
+268%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1600%
34
+1600%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1325%
110−120
+1325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2575%
107
+2575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−489%
50−55
+489%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−268%
100−110
+268%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1050%
92
+1050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1975%
83
+1975%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−500%
54
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+12%
25
−12%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 17
Hitman 3 6−7
−383%
27−30
+383%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−3200%
66
+3200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1950%
40−45
+1950%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1400%
14−16
+1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 51
+0%
51
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 43
+0%
43
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 23
+0%
23
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 56
+0%
56
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 10
+0%
10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 25
+0%
25
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10
+0%
10
+0%

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 160M is 12% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6500 XT is 3500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • NVS 160M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • RX 6500 XT is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.35 24.80
Recency 15 August 2008 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 107 Watt

NVS 160M has 791.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 6985.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 Radeon RX 6500 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.

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
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

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
3.8 3265 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT 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.