Radeon RX Vega 3 vs Quadro NVS 160M

Place in the ranking	1296	785
Place by popularity	not in top-100	85
Power efficiency	2.01	13.72
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	G98	Picasso
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	15 August 2008 (16 years ago)	6 January 2019 (6 years ago)

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	8	192
Core clock speed	580 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1001 MHz
Number of transistors	210 million	4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.640	12.01
Floating-point processing power	0.0232 TFLOPS	0.3844 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	12

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).

Interface	MXM-I	IGP
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	11.2 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

API 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	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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.

NVS 160M 0.35

RX Vega 3 2.99
+754%

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 Vega 3 1149
+751%

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

−1100%

12
+1100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −133%	14 +133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −50%	6 +50%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −100%	12 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −83.3%	11 +83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −214%	22 +214%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +66.7%	3 −66.7%
World of Tanks	12−14 −76.9%	23 +76.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −183%	16−18 +183%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −50%	9 +50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−950%

21−24
+950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	2−3
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Valorant	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	2−3
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Valorant	0−1	3−4

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	8 +0%	8 +0%
Metro Exodus	5 +0%	5 +0%
Valorant	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	13 +0%	13 +0%
Fortnite	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	9 +0%	9 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
World of Tanks	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

4K
High Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Fortnite	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how NVS 160M and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 3 is 1100% faster in 1080p

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the NVS 160M is 67% faster.
in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 3 is 950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

NVS 160M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
RX Vega 3 is ahead in 28 tests (47%)
there's a draw in 30 tests (51%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.35	2.99
Recency	15 August 2008	6 January 2019
Chip lithography	65 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	15 Watt

NVS 160M has 25% lower power consumption.

RX Vega 3, on the other hand, has a 754.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

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

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