Quadro FX 1600M vs Radeon R9 Fury

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
23.01
+4009%

R9 Fury outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 4009% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2391225
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.580.03
Power efficiency6.130.82
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameFijiG84
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date10 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 25167% better value for money than FX 1600M.

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 cores358432
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data625 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors8,900 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate224.010.00
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs22416

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-HE
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pinno 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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s25.6 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no 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.

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL2.01.1
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.

R9 Fury 23.01
+4009%
FX 1600M 0.56

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.

R9 Fury 9554
+4036%
FX 1600M 231

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 HD90
+4400%
2−3
−4400%
1440p106
+5200%
2−3
−5200%
4K48
+4700%
1−2
−4700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.10
+1129%
74.95
−1129%
1440p5.18
+1347%
74.95
−1347%
4K11.44
+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
+4367%
3−4
−4367%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+4367%
3−4
−4367%
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
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+1025%
8−9
−1025%
Valorant 160−170
+479%
27−30
−479%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+4367%
3−4
−4367%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 268
+1389%
18−20
−1389%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Dota 2 120−130
+900%
12−14
−900%
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
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Metro Exodus 50−55 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+1025%
8−9
−1025%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
+1417%
6−7
−1417%
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
+983%
12−14
−983%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+7600%
1−2
−7600%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+2225%
4−5
−2225%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50
+525%
8−9
−525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+667%
6−7
−667%
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
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
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
+2817%
6−7
−2817%
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
+1633%
3−4
−1633%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%

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
+4400%
3−4
−4400%

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 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
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 34 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.01 0.56
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 4008.9% 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.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M
Quadro FX 1600M

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 178 votes

Rate Radeon R9 Fury on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 Fury or Quadro FX 1600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.