ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Radeon X1600 PRO, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
2017
15 Watt
4.51
+1704%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms ATI X1600 PRO by a whopping 1704% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6601356
Place by popularity38not in top-100
Power efficiency20.610.42
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeRV530
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date26 October 2017 (7 years ago)1 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores512no data
Core clock speed300 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistors9,800 million157 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate57.602.000
Floating-point processing power1.843 TFLOPSno data
ROPs84
TMUs324

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared390 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.48 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.1N/A
Vulkan1.2N/A

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 4.51
+1704%
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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 1737
+1672%
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 HD180−1
4K8-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10 0−1
Battlefield 5 18 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1
Far Cry 5 18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 58
+1833%
3−4
−1833%
Hitman 3 9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Metro Exodus 22
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65
+2067%
3−4
−2067%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−12 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6 0−1
Far Cry 5 10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 13 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 52
+2500%
2−3
−2500%
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Metro Exodus 17 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55
+1733%
3−4
−1733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5 0−1
Far Cry 5 7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 15 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+2150%
2−3
−2150%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.51 0.25
Recency 26 October 2017 1 October 2007
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 41 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 1704% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 173.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while Radeon X1600 PRO is a desktop one.


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

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 RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
ATI Radeon X1600 PRO
Radeon X1600 PRO

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 1454 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 123 votes

Rate Radeon X1600 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.