Quadro FX 1600M vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile with Quadro FX 1600M, including specs and performance data.
560 Mobile outperforms 1600M by a whopping 2146% 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 | 481 | 1310 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 12.24 | 0.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | G84 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (9 years ago) | 1 June 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $149.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 560 Mobile has 56600% 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 | 1024 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 289 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 76.93 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.462 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 32 KB |
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 | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-HE |
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 | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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 | 43
+4200%
| 1−2
−4200%
|
| 4K | 36
+3500%
| 1−2
−3500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33
+6346%
| 149.90
−6346%
|
| 4K | 2.78
+5297%
| 149.90
−5297%
|
- RX 560 Mobile has 6346% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile has 5297% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 20−22 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Fortnite | 87
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+263%
|
27−30
−263%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+869%
|
16−18
−869%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+573%
|
10−12
−573%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+263%
|
27−30
−263%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+573%
|
10−12
−573%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+263%
|
27−30
−263%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1040%
|
5−6
−1040%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+2200%
|
5−6
−2200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and FX 1600M compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 4200% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 3500% 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 RX 560 Mobile is 3850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 560 Mobile surpassed FX 1600M in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.33 | 0.46 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 1 June 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
RX 560 Mobile has a 2146% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 30% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook graphics 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.
