Quadro FX 1600M vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

Place in the ranking	70	1295
Place by popularity	41	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	20.83	0.01
Power efficiency	13.21	0.47
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP102	G84
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	10 March 2017 (7 years ago)	1 June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$699	$149.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1080 Ti has 208200% 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 cores	3584	32
Core clock speed	1481 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1582 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	11,800 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	91 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	354.4	10.00
Floating-point processing power	11.34 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	88	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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-HE
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Recommended system power (PSU)	600 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	no data
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5X	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	11 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	352 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1376 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	484.4 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
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost	3.0	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
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. 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.

GTX 1080 Ti 48.17
+14068%

FX 1600M 0.34

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.

GTX 1080 Ti 18562
+14069%

FX 1600M 131

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	132	0−1
1440p	83	0−1
4K	66	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.30	no data
1440p	8.42	no data
4K	10.59	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

85−90
+4300%

2−3

−4300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	100 +3233%	3−4 −3233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	80−85	0−1
Battlefield 5	162 +16100%	1−2 −16100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	95−100 +4650%	2−3 −4650%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4300%	2−3 −4300%
Far Cry 5	122	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	110−120	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	293 +14550%	2−3 −14550%
Hitman 3	100−110 +2450%	4−5 −2450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	190−200 +2288%	8−9 −2288%
Metro Exodus	144 +14300%	1−2 −14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	100−110	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	215 +5275%	4−5 −5275%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +396%	27−30 −396%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	145 +4733%	3−4 −4733%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	80−85	0−1
Battlefield 5	147 +14600%	1−2 −14600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	95−100 +4650%	2−3 −4650%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4300%	2−3 −4300%
Far Cry 5	96	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	59	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	284 +14100%	2−3 −14100%
Hitman 3	100−110 +2450%	4−5 −2450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	190−200 +2288%	8−9 −2288%
Metro Exodus	144 +14300%	1−2 −14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	100−110	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	196 +4800%	4−5 −4800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95−100 +1000%	9−10 −1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +396%	27−30 −396%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	71 +2267%	3−4 −2267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	80−85	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	81 +3950%	2−3 −3950%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4300%	2−3 −4300%
Far Cry 5	73	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	120	0−1
Hitman 3	100−110 +2450%	4−5 −2450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	153 +1813%	8−9 −1813%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	167 +4075%	4−5 −4075%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	98 +989%	9−10 −989%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +396%	27−30 −396%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

121

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	108	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	86	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	62	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	62	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	265 +26400%	1−2 −26400%
Hitman 3	65−70 +983%	6−7 −983%
Horizon Zero Dawn	118 +5800%	2−3 −5800%
Metro Exodus	88	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	123	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	210−220 +21300%	1−2 −21300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

98
+4800%

2−3

−4800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	56	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	69	0−1
Hitman 3	40−45	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	200−210 +20200%	1−2 −20200%
Metro Exodus	60	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	72	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	37	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20	0−1
Far Cry 5	31	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	72	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

49
+2350%

2−3

−2350%

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1080 Ti is 5800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 1080 Ti surpassed FX 1600M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	48.17	0.34
Recency	10 March 2017	1 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	11 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1080 Ti has a 14067.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 2100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a desktop 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.