ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs R7 370

Place in the ranking	409	1356
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.65	no data
Power efficiency	7.29	0.42
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code name	Trinidad	RV530
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	1 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 370 and ATI X1600 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.

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	1024	no data
Core clock speed	no data	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	975 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	157 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	41 Watt
Texture fill rate	62.40	2.000
Floating-point processing power	1.997 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	64	4

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	152 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	975 MHz	390 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	12.48 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	5.1	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.0
OpenCL	2.0	N/A
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	+	-

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.

R7 370 11.69
+4576%

ATI X1600 PRO 0.25

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.

R7 370 4503
+4495%

ATI X1600 PRO 98

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	47 +4600%	1−2 −4600%
1440p	65 +6400%	1−2 −6400%
4K	18	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.17	199.00
1440p	2.29	199.00
4K	8.28	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	0−1
Battlefield 5	35−40	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20	0−1
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
Hitman 3	21−24	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Metro Exodus	35−40	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	0−1
Battlefield 5	35−40	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20	0−1
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
Hitman 3	21−24	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Metro Exodus	35−40	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	89 +8800%	1−2 −8800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20	0−1
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +7700%	1−2 −7700%
Hitman 3	21−24	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +5500%	1−2 −5500%
Hitman 3	14−16	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27	0−1
Metro Exodus	18−20	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +7200%	1−2 −7200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

0−1

This is how R7 370 and ATI X1600 PRO compete in popular games:

R7 370 is 4600% faster in 1080p
R7 370 is 6400% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.69	0.25
Recency	18 June 2015	1 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	41 Watt

R7 370 has a 4576% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1600 PRO, on the other hand, has 168.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.

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