GeForce 210 vs Quadro FX 1600M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.

FX 1600M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 50 Watt
0.34
+13.3%

FX 1600M outperforms 210 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12931323
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.470.67
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameG84GT218
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2007 (17 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149.90 $29.49

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 cores3216
Core clock speed625 MHz589 MHz
Number of transistors289 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate10.004.160
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs168

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data2.731" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s8.0 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 outputsDVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL3.33.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1+

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.

FX 1600M 0.34
+13.3%
GeForce 210 0.30

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.

FX 1600M 131
+13.9%
GeForce 210 115

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.34 0.30
Recency 1 June 2007 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 80 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 30 Watt

FX 1600M has a 13.3% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce 210, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 1600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 210 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M
Quadro FX 1600M
NVIDIA GeForce 210
GeForce 210

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.


2.8 8 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 3625 votes

Rate GeForce 210 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.