Quadro FX 1600M vs Radeon R9 Fury
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.
R9 Fury outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 4022% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 245 | 1236 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.47 | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 6.15 | 0.82 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | G84 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 July 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $149.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 Fury has 24800% better value for money than FX 1600M.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3584 | 32 |
| Compute units | 56 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.0 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.168 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 224 | 16 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-HE |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR3 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 25.6 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| 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 | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
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 | 90
+4400%
| 2−3
−4400%
|
| 1440p | 106
+5200%
| 2−3
−5200%
|
| 4K | 48
+4700%
| 1−2
−4700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.10
+1129%
| 74.95
−1129%
|
| 1440p | 5.18
+1347%
| 74.95
−1347%
|
| 4K | 11.44
+1211%
| 149.90
−1211%
|
- R9 Fury has 1129% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Fury has 1347% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 Fury has 1211% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+4333%
|
3−4
−4333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+4333%
|
3−4
−4333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+5700%
|
2−3
−5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2225%
|
4−5
−2225%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1038%
|
8−9
−1038%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+479%
|
27−30
−479%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+4333%
|
3−4
−4333%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 268
+1389%
|
18−20
−1389%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+991%
|
10−12
−991%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Fortnite | 95
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2225%
|
4−5
−2225%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+1038%
|
8−9
−1038%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+479%
|
27−30
−479%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+1082%
|
10−12
−1082%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2225%
|
4−5
−2225%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+479%
|
27−30
−479%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 158
+7800%
|
2−3
−7800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2800%
|
6−7
−2800%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+4925%
|
4−5
−4925%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 109
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+213%
|
14−16
−213%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 130−140
+4433%
|
3−4
−4433%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 102
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
This is how R9 Fury and FX 1600M compete in popular games:
- R9 Fury is 4400% faster in 1080p
- R9 Fury is 5200% faster in 1440p
- R9 Fury is 4700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Fury is 7800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 Fury surpassed FX 1600M in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.67 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 10 July 2015 | 1 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 50 Watt |
R9 Fury has a 4021.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 450% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
