Radeon RX 6900 XT vs Quadro FX 1600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1600M with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6900 XT outperforms FX 1600M by a whopping 11406% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1217 | 27 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 30.03 |
| Power efficiency | 0.82 | 15.75 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | G84 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2007 (17 years ago) | 28 October 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149.90 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 6900 XT has 100000% 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 | 32 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 720.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 16 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−19500%
| 196
+19500%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−13300%
| 134
+13300%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 83 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 149.90
−2841%
| 5.10
+2841%
|
| 1440p | 149.90
−1911%
| 7.46
+1911%
|
| 4K | no data | 12.04 |
- RX 6900 XT has 2841% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT has 1911% lower cost per frame in 1440p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
190−200
+9850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
190−200
+9850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6975%
|
283
+6975%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1193%
|
350−400
+1193%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
190−200
+9850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1535%
|
270−280
+1535%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1308%
|
160−170
+1308%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6875%
|
279
+6875%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 164 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−7975%
|
323
+7975%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1193%
|
350−400
+1193%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7950%
|
160−170
+7950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1308%
|
160−170
+1308%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6100%
|
248
+6100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2113%
|
170−180
+2113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4000%
|
164
+4000%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1368%
|
411
+1368%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−24700%
|
450−500
+24700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−23000%
|
231
+23000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−940%
|
150−160
+940%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10933%
|
300−350
+10933%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10100%
|
100−110
+10100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 195
+0%
|
195
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 197
+0%
|
197
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
This is how FX 1600M and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is 19500% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT is 13300% faster in 1440p
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 6900 XT is 24700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is ahead in 30 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 31 test (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 59.83 |
| Recency | 1 June 2007 | 28 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 300 Watt |
FX 1600M has 500% lower power consumption.
RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 11405.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1600M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
