Quadro FX 1600M vs Quadro FX 1800

Place in the ranking	1100	1293
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	0.01
Power efficiency	1.22	0.47
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	G94	G84
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)	1 June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$489	$149.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 1800 has 200% 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	64	32
Core clock speed	550 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	505 million	289 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	59 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.60	10.00
Floating-point processing power	0.176 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	12	8
TMUs	32	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 2.0 x16	MXM-HE
Length	198 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	768 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	38.4 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 DVI, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.0	4.0
OpenGL	3.3	3.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.1	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.

FX 1800 1.03
+203%

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.

FX 1800 397
+203%

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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 29 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.03	0.34
Recency	30 March 2009	1 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	768 MB	512 MB
Chip lithography	65 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	59 Watt	50 Watt

FX 1800 has a 202.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 23.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1600M, on the other hand, has 18% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 1800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1600M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1800 is a workstation 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.