Quadro FX 1600M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	480	1293
Place by popularity	29	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	42.01	0.47
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Vega	G84
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 January 2020 (4 years ago)	1 June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149.90

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 cores	512	32
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	10.00
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	8
TMUs	no data	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
Interface	no data	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	no data	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

no data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	no data	4.0
OpenGL	no data	3.3
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	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	22	0−1
1440p	16	0−1
4K	10	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

19
+850%

2−3

−850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20	0−1
Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%
Hitman 3	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +538%	8−9 −538%
Metro Exodus	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +3200%	1−2 −3200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +114%	27−30 −114%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16	0−1
Battlefield 5	27−30 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%
Hitman 3	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +538%	8−9 −538%
Metro Exodus	25	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +114%	27−30 −114%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Far Cry 5	21−24	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +2950%	2−3 −2950%
Hitman 3	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24 +200%	8−9 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +475%	4−5 −475%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 −133%	27−30 +133%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	11	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	5	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
Hitman 3	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Metro Exodus	17	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	59 +2850%	2−3 −2850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

13
+550%

2−3

−550%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Metro Exodus	7−8	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−12	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 900% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 1600M is 133% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
FX 1600M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.04	0.34
Recency	7 January 2020	1 June 2007
Chip lithography	7 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	50 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 2558.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation one.

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